Take the 2-minute tour ×
English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Today, I came across WP's entry for the word esquivalience:

"Esquivalience" is a fictitious entry in the New Oxford American Dictionary (NOAD), which was designed and included to protect copyright of the publication.

The word was invented by Christine Lindberg, one of the editors of the NOAD and discovered by Henry Alford.

It was leaked that the dictionary had put in a fake word in the letter "e" and Alford set out to find the word. It was discovered after review of a short list by several experts. When the editor, Erin McKean, was contacted she admitted that it was indeed a fake word and had been in since the first edition, in order to protect the copyright of the CD-ROM edition.

The word is defined as "the willful avoidance of one's official responsibilities."

The first edition of the NOAD was published back in 2001 and two more have since seen print. Eleven years later, the word continues to be defined as a legitimate entry on ODO, Google, and going by the WP article, in the print editions. Is it now considered an authentic word? Or are OUP esquivaliently demonstrating the use of their esquivalience?

share|improve this question
1  
Invented by X and discovered by Y? Did X forget about it? –  Mitch Oct 16 '12 at 17:16
    
I am sorely tempted to use this word next time I write a formal letter of complaint. :) –  Pitarou Oct 16 '12 at 23:09
    
Denying the word's authenticity would be a parade example of the etymological fallacy. –  StoneyB Oct 17 '12 at 1:51
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

This is one place where I think NGrams can throw a little light on the subject.

enter image description here

Even when you narrow the search to between 2000 and 2008, you're still looking at a flatlining entry.

In cases where a word is defined by a dictionary but nobody is really using it, I think it's safe to say it's not a real word. If people pick it up and start using it, then sure, it will qualify. For now, though, I would call it artificial — a Potemkin village of a word.

Edit

It was pointed out to me that I misspelled the made-up word. I'm not sure how a fake word can be misspelled, but here is an NGram for the "correct" spelling. Note the huge jump in usage.

enter image description here

share|improve this answer
    
If you care, I've just verified that this non-word does not appear in the current online version of the OED. It's a shame though that this question will now be one of the top Google hits for the non-word I shall not type. :( –  tchrist Oct 16 '12 at 17:39
    
@tchrist I'm unfamiliar with the online OED. Does it incorporate the NOAD? –  coleopterist Oct 16 '12 at 17:59
1  
@Robusto Hey, you misspelled it in your NGram search. It's esquivalience, with another i in. (Not that that changes the results, mind.) –  Mr Lister Oct 16 '12 at 19:37
1  
@MrLister: The difference is plain. See above. –  Robusto Oct 16 '12 at 19:45
add comment

A Google search yields a few genuine hits for that word. Here's one that contains some comments by the NOAD editor who created the word. She says "that she finds herself using it regularly". A few dictionaries contain the word, or used to (Dictionary.com) but deleted it.

The question is whether anyone but the NOAD editor and her buddies use the word. If English speakers see it in NOAD and actually start using it because they believe it's a real word, then it becomes one because it's used. If no one actually uses it, then it's not a real word. But the real test, it seems to me, is when it's included in the Scrabble dictionary: then and only then is it a real word. But maybe it's just a matter of faith: If I believe it's true, then it's true for me and that's all that's important. Solipsism is everywhere.

Alford's New Yorker article about it is interesting. The Chicago Tribune article cited in Wikipedia is a dead link.

share|improve this answer
    
What about exagmination? –  StoneyB Oct 17 '12 at 1:48
    
Strictly for specialistas and Finnegan's Wake lovers. I read the first 32 pages of the latter and decided to save the rest for my next life. It might be interesting to read the Exag to see what JJ's friends had to say, though: "... His writing is not about something; it is that something itself." Samuel Beckett. link –  user21497 Oct 17 '12 at 2:09
    
Thanks. The Tribune article is here. –  coleopterist Oct 17 '12 at 5:56
    
Unfortunately last I checked the Scrabble dictionary doesn't include words longer than 8 letters (in base form) so I think you're going to be in a bit of trouble with that rule. –  Merk Oct 18 '12 at 6:42
    
I was being a bit facetious with that remark. :-) –  user21497 Oct 18 '12 at 9:53
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.