How would you go about coining a new word?

It reminds me of Teddy Roosevelt’s “bloviation,” except for an act.

Pompilate?

You totally should! In fact, in many languages, as Esperanto and, if I’m not wrong, German, this is an everyday thing. For example, in Esperanto, “Done in a pompously or overly solemn manner” could be written as:

“Farita ceremone” or, just everything in one word, as:
“Ceremonifarita” = ceremone (pompously) + farita (done)

So it’s OK to coin new words, but before inventing a totally new world, I’d go with mixing two, searching in other languages for words that express what want to say and if those fail, yeah, go ahead. Invent a new catchy word. Who knows? Maybe we all be using it in a few years :)

@Pk_JoA But how would you go about making sure that people could find out about it – it’s no good to me if I’m the only one who knows the definition.

@MyNewtBoobs Well, that’s impossible. Unless the word is really self explanatory, you should adress the word with an explication of what it is. As the guy who invented the emoticons. He just said one day (1):
“Hey guys, let’s use :) as a happy face. Isn’t it similar to a happy face?”.

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emoticon#Creation_of_:.29_and_:.28

I think you could actually use your new word, but you would have to specify that that is what you are doing, because there really is no other word that is exactly correct. So the new word would be put in italics, but you would also be stating right then and there that it is a brand new word.

@Pk_JoA I feel that it’s almost definitely not impossible, otherwise we wouldn’t have quite a few of our words.

@MyNewtBoobs Shakespeare did this often. Just use it as you would in your daily language.

My son uses his word “hunormous” every day. I’ve never heard him questioned for it by any one other than his psychologist (and she only asked to see if he remembered how he stared using it ;)

Man, that dinosaur must’ve been hunormous.

I did this by accident one day.
Someone was giving me a ride because my car was in the shop—

Them [deciding to be funny]: Well, have fun over yonder
Me [without much thought on what I was saying]: Yup, and you have fun.. yinder

I haven’t used the new “word” since, but it just popped out, seemed to fit, and they understood exactly what I meant. We both laughed a bit, and then I went to class. At the time I thought I was very clever.

So I guess my answer would be—I wouldn’t over-think it or try to make a new word. But if no word seems to fit, try sounding out what you’re trying to say and see what comes.

You would have to use the word in speech and get it to catch on. Then, when it’s more commonly used, it can be considered a ‘new word’ and you have much more traction if you’re looking to use it on papers. Otherwise, a professor doesn’t know whether you’re creative or whether you have a loose grasp on English. :)

Just use it and see if somebody picks up on it.

I can claim responsibility for the invention of the word “bozomorph.” I first used it in a Usenet discussion back in the 1980s. I know I have seen it used since, although Google doesn’t turn up anything on it. I’m being suppressed by the media.

I’d netblitz it.

It helps if the meaning of the word in question can be inferred with relative ease – “circumcoetaneous” (“around the same age”) can be deciphered with little trouble, but “grok” needs a trip to the Google.

Isn’t “grok” a Klingon word?

@Kardamom It’s Heinlein, from Stranger In A Strange Land. It more or less works out to “understanding,” but refers to the (highly ritualized) act of Martians drinking water. To grok something is to understand it so well that it’s practically part of you.
Or something.

@Nullo That’s a great word!

@Kardamom The Internet thought so, too. It is one of several Heinleinisms that have made it into the English lexicon, even though it doesn’t get used very much.

From the horse’s mouth:
Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in group experience. It means almost everything that we mean by religion, philosophy, and science—and it means as little to us (because of our Earthly assumptions) as color means to a blind man.