0

I was considering creating the word "Hamletian," meaning "of Hamlet," for use in an annotated bibliography, because I like the sound of "Hamletian criticism" much more than "criticism of Hamlet." It could be used in a manner similar to the following:

". . . T. S. Eliot's objections to Goethe and Coleridge's Hamletian criticism in his essay 'Hamlet and His Problems' . . . "

I think it would be an elegant way to express the meaning stated above and to satisfy my stylistic preferences, but I do not want credit deducted for a spelling or grammar error. More generally, is it appropriate and acceptable to create (immediately intelligible) words in a pre-collegiate academic assignment?

closed as off-topic by Edwin Ashworth, Nigel J, Phil Sweet, Scott, user240918 Jan 19 '18 at 11:19

  • This question does not appear to be about English language and usage within the scope defined in the help center.
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 2
    Your teacher is the only authority on what he or she will find "acceptable" for any particular assignment, but there are plenty of nonce words in academic writing. Also see What are the limits of using the suffix “-esque”? and Compare as similar by adding “-esque” – choster Jan 18 '18 at 21:44
  • 1
    A majority of high school teachers is a problematic phrase, and open to opinion. – Cascabel Jan 18 '18 at 22:17
  • 1
    It doesn't matter if 99% of teachers would accept something if yours does not, and it is not the purpose of this site to speculate on such things, even on standardized exams. As I noted, however, there are plenty of adjective-forming suffixes that people use in all kinds of situations without raising any eyebrows, though some situations might call for Hamlet-like, Hamletic, Hamletal, Hamletesque, Hamlet-y, etc. – choster Jan 18 '18 at 22:28
  • 1
    @Cascabel: I would argue that that phrase is not open to opinion, only that it is hard to know, and subject to statistical inaccuracy in sampling; regardless, I concur that it is problematic. – Mushroom Man Jan 18 '18 at 22:39
  • 5
    Please include the research you’ve done: a check to see whether the word actually existed was imperative. Also, it has been stated many times on ELU that the invention of new 'words' is not a suitable topic for discussion on a site devoted to present (and some past) usage. – Edwin Ashworth Jan 19 '18 at 0:51
2

Hamletian has been around since the mid-nineteenth century, but the word is never used in the sense you envision. What, for instance, would Kafkaesque criticism be like? Tenured professors transformed into insects or brought to trial for some imaginary crime? Would Hamletian critics brood over skulls of departed acquaintances? Such words, derived from the names of authors or famous works, point to commonly acknowledged characteristics one might find in other literature, or even life itself, but not to the authors or works themselves. Thus it would be nothing short of bizarre to term secondary literature about Hamlet — or Hamlet — as "Hamletian."

  • 1
    What quotes are you talking about? I've only cited an NGram, which suggests to the OP that he/she is unable to coin a word that's been around since 1840 and further, that such types of words aren't used generally in the sense proposed. I think that pretty well covers the point. – KarlG Jan 18 '18 at 22:36
  • 2
    Erm...ngram is not an end-all. I suggest that you dig a little more. I actually looked at the ngram quotes. Did you? All you do is see for "hits", without investigation. That is not what we are all about here. An appropriate answer would include data... – Cascabel Jan 18 '18 at 22:39
  • Yes, I sampled them, but saw no need to cite any in particular. And whether you realize it or not, your tone here is becoming extremely patronizing. – KarlG Jan 18 '18 at 22:44
  • You're perfectly free to downvote any of my answers, just as I will feel free not to burden readers with extraneous citation. – KarlG Jan 18 '18 at 22:59
  • I'd argue that @KarlG's answer has sufficiently answered my question, as I, from knowing the frequency of "Hamletian's" usage, stated by his source, can assume that the word I consider using would be valid in the scope of English writing, and thus acceptable to my teacher. Additionally, but somewhat unrelated, Wiktionary may be saying that my proposed use of "Hamletian" would be valid. Also, Cascabel, your comment referencing the "majority" is an implicit argumentum ad populum. – Mushroom Man Jan 19 '18 at 1:56

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