Obsequity as a noun in parallel with obsequiousness
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty{ margin-bottom:0;
}
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 at 17:11
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
word-usage
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 at 13:50
Vali Jamal
45128
45128
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 at 17:11
add a comment |
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 at 17:11
2
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 at 14:02
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 at 14:02
4
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 at 14:16
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 at 17:11
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 at 17:11
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
up vote
0
down vote
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
answered Aug 17 at 2:17
Jason Bassford
14.7k31941
14.7k31941
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460449%2fobsequity-as-a-noun-in-parallel-with-obsequiousness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 at 17:11