The AskPhilosophers logo.

Language

During free time at my place of work, the faculty often get together for some intense rounds of "Boggle". In case you're not familiar, this is a game where letters are randomly arranged in a square, and then the players are timed as they try to form words using only adjacent letters. Because the scores are often so close, much debate often arises as to what constitutes a fair word. For example, can "er" be added to any verb to make it a noun, such as to "dare" or "err" to make "darer" and "errer", one who dares, and one who errs, respectively? Also, would a word like "beated", which is not in the dictionary, be acceptable if someone had heard it used, say in the following case: "after the eggs are beated...". What about sounds like "purr", or "whizz"? What are the criteria for determining if something is a word? Whose say should be taken as authoritative? Thanks!
Accepted:
October 18, 2007

Comments

Allen Stairs
October 20, 2007 (changed October 20, 2007) Permalink

Let's start with "beated." On the one hand, it's a word as opposed to a punctuation mark or a pony. But that's not what you want to know. Your question is something like: is it a word in English? And so the more general question is: when does a potential word count as a "real" word in a language?

What about this? It counts as a word if the people who use the language accept it as one.

That's vague many ways over: Which people? (Presumably it needn't be all.) What's a language? (Can we do better than say that it's a dialect with a gun? What's a dialect?) Accept in what circumstances and for what purposes? We'd also have obvious circularity problems if we treated this formula as a serious definition of "word in a language." But the point is that there are no firm facts here; there are complicated, imprecise and often untidy conventions. We all have some say in what counts as a word in a language, because at the end of the day, how people speak and write settles the matter. But there are no simple rules that settle how it all gets settled, and none of us get to decide on our own. On the one hand, something can be a "real" word even if dictionaries haven't yet caught up with the fact; on the other hand, not even the Queen can decide by herself what counts as The Queen's English.

Among your group of boggle players, I'd suggest adopting a convention such as using the official Scrabbleâ„¢ dictionary. If you all agree, that's good enough. There are no deeper facts to be had.

Dictionaries do have a special place in most people's judgments about what counts as a "real" word. Most of us agree that if something ends up in a widely-recognized dictionary (Webster's, Oxford...), it counts, but that's not necessary. When a dictionary recognizes a new word, it's because the dictionary makers judge that actual usage has already made the word part of the language.

For what it's worth: my vote would be that "errer," "beater" are fine. So are "whiz" and "purr." "Beated" doesn't do it for me. Meanwhile, I'm on a crusade to get two new "words" into the language: Pitgoat and Petlamb. (Click the links if you're curious.) I hereby authorize you to use either whenever you're playing Boggle. Plurals and the abstractions "Pitgoatery" and "Petlambery" are fine too.

Now if only I can get Merriam-Webster to agree...

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/1845
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org