Style Conversational Week 1495: Makeup Tips — how to write a Style Invitational neologism

Placeholder whereas article actions load As I virtually all the time do when judging a Style Invitational neologism contest — I determine conservatively that I’ve judged shut to 100,000 concepts for brand spanking new phrases over my 19-year reign as Empress — I discovered a lot of humorous, intelligent concepts to like among the many 1,100 entries to Week 1491, a problem to add a letter to an present phrase and describe the brand new phrase. In truth, my “shortlist” of inkworthies included about 1 in 10 of the entries, and — due to further room on the print web page — greater than half of these received ink on this week’s outcomes. (See, Losers, the percentages are literally fairly good! Compare with The New Yorker’s cartoon caption contest: usually 5,000-plus entries, three get ink. This week, the Invite has 63. New Yorker: You get one attempt per week. We provide you with 25.) But I additionally received, as I all the time do, entries that didn’t do the trick, even after they had a germ of a good thought, even a purulent rash of a good thought. Today I’ll use some non-inking entries from Week 1491 to illustrate some drawback areas (I by no means seemed up who wrote them, so your secret is secure with not-even-me), for the add-a-letter contest particularly and neologisms normally. I’ve gone via this train in previous columns, however the hits simply carry on coming, so … Does the definition match the a part of speech of the neologism? What? Your neologism isn’t even a actual phrase — how I can Smarty Pants Empress declare that it’s an adjective while you, the creator, outlined it as a noun? Because as English-readers we’re attuned to the phrase endings and different cues that inform us — and, primarily, as a result of it’s normally modifying a phrase we do know. Here’s one entry: “Racknowledge: Experienced breast man.” Acknowledge: Verb. Breast man: Noun. No no no. “Abombinable: A really unhealthy bomb maker, akin to one which blows himself up whereas making or testing the bomb.” (More on this one later.) Yes, a noun might finish in an adjectival ending, you deplorable. But not this noun. Here’s one through which the author understood that their [I’m practicing using the singular “they”] neologism was a verb (since “adorn” is a verb), as a result of they used it as a verb of their sentence. But nonetheless they outlined it as a noun, a factor. “Badorn: A failure in residence decor. ‘When Stephanie badorned her bed room, her sister made an emergency name to Martha Stewart.’” The repair right here is simple: “Badorn: To fail at residence decor.” (If an entry is in any other case thrilling, I’m prepared to repair this drawback if it’s simple to do.) One method out of this drawback: If you’ve gotten a good phrase however your definition appears too apparent or clunky — defining adjectives with “pertaining to,” and so on., can appear leaden — you may fudge it by simply going to the humorous half. That’s what Karen Lambert did with Carcophony: “Are we there but?” “It’s my flip to sit up entrance!” “Are we there but?” “I would like to use the lavatory! “She pushed me!” “Are we there but?” “Did not, he pushed me first!” “Are we there but?”Is there something humorous about it? “Dockument: Boat slip receipt.” Okay, that may very well be amusing in case you turned in your boat slip receipt on the marina workplace and included a be aware saying, “Here’s my DOCKument hahahah.” Or not. Reading it out of context within the newspaper? Not. It additionally doesn’t assist to have wordy, unconversational language within the description: “MamoMeba: Proliferating ABBA derivatives.” “Abombinable: A really unhealthy bomb maker, akin to one which blows himself up whereas making or testing the bomb.” Does the definition relate no less than a little to the unique phrase? If it does, your joke is much extra doubtless to be humorous; if it doesn’t, readers may be scratching their heads to get it. Look at this one, a change from “bovine”: “Brovine: the frat boy gossip community. ‘I heard via the brovine, McKenzie says you want to manscape, bro.’ ” A cow? On prime of that, the author abandons “bovine” after including the letter, taking part in as an alternative on “grapevine,” sapping the humor from a promising thought.Also: “Began > Beegan: Someone who eats solely honey.” “Carmen > Charmen: Barbeque guys, as in ‘We made the salads and desserts, however the Charmen cooked the meat.’” Carmen? Do you stomp on the joke by repeating the important thing phrase? “Abombinable: A really unhealthy bomb maker.” “Abysmale: Obnoxious male.” Try for a swish different, like Roger Dalrymple’s “Abysmale: Your doofus brother-in-law.” But: Do you awkwardly keep away from repeating the important thing phrase? “Camelra: A video recording gadget hidden underneath a desert pack animal’s false hump.” You may say “dromedary” as an alternative of “desert pack animal.” But it’d even have helped to give you a humorous state of affairs of why there was a digicam hidden in a faux camel hump. Does the definition have any relevance to our lives? “Barksheesh: A bribe paid to canine groomers in components of Asia and North Africa.” I significantly get pleasure from neologisms that we will use in the actual world; I’m going to guess that this one wouldn’t have a lot of use. (One notable exception this week: Jesse Frankovich’s completely zany “Chat on a Hot Tin Roof”: “OMG, this tin roof is scorching!” “LOL, I do know, proper?”)Has it already gotten ink in an earlier contest? Thanks to the Super-Fabulous Loser Elden Carnahan, you may immediately seek for your phrase via each Invite since Week 1 by going to this textual content file. (Or click on on “All Invitational Text” on the homepage of the Losers’ web site, NRARS.org.) Submitted in Week 1491 with definitions just about the identical as — or virtually equivalent to — the sooner Invite ink: “Compenisation: Buying a Porsche.” 2003: “Compenisate: To purchase a pink Porsche for causes you don’t fairly perceive.” (Stephen Dudzik) “Dyspeepsia: What you get from consuming too many marshmallow chicks on Easter.” “Dyspeepsia: The results of consuming an excessive amount of Easter sweet.” (Marian Phelps) “Defibrillatte: A espresso drink sturdy sufficient to revive the lifeless.” “Defibrillatte: Really, actually sturdy espresso. (John Griessmayer) That final definition was higher than the unique, however not totally different sufficient.Is it too frequent normally? “Demockracy: If I lose, it’s fraud.” The phrase with the identical basic that means generates tens of 1000’s of Google hits. For this specific add-a-letter contest: Did you actually substitute one other letter? “Ambidsextrous: having equal dexterity from both aspect of the mattress.” “Ambisextrous” would have been a good neologism, however that D is extraneous; it’s there simply to meet the foundations of the competition. This one virtually received huge ink till I seen that it was lacking an M — and was weakened after I added it: Coomentary: Play-by-play on the Puppy Bowl, that includes such evaluation as “Awwwww” and “Oh, awwww.” It would have had to be Coommentary, which isn’t “coo.”Is your writing clear? As true for just about the whole lot that everybody writes, it’s helpful to have another person learn it to see if the reader understands what you’re getting at (not to point out flag embarrassing typos). Case in level: The authentic definition for Joanne Free’s neologism “chompulsion” was “the deep urge one has to battle whereas within the dentist’s chair.” I personally cop to having sometimes felt like biting the hand that drilled me, so I despatched Joanne’s entry to Bob Staake as potential cartoon fodder. What hadn’t occurred to me was that the entry’s wording had a sure ambiguity — sufficient for Bob to learn “the deep urge one has to battle” as “a deep urge to battle,” relatively than “one has to battle the urge,” main to the sketch of the tooth-pulling on the prime of this web page. You can argue that “chompulsion” is clearly about chomping, however I’d simply obtained proof that it may be misinterpret. So I tweaked it to “The deep urge one has to battle whereas the dentist is jabbing you within the mouth.” While “battle” may nonetheless be examine combating the dentist relatively than the urge, no less than we’re clearly speaking about biting. (As all the time, Bob provides each sketches and completed drawings for his Style Invitational work at bobstaake.com/SI; I noticed that he not too long ago bought off a huge set of small drawings to a Staake fan who won’t even have been an Invite fan.) What Pleased Ponch: Ace Copy Editor Ponch Garcia — who’ll be our standard copy editor for the Invite now that Doug Norwood has retired from The Post — had a good time studying the entries this week, all of which seem each in print and on-line. His faves all got here from the honorable mentions: Abhortionist: One who makes use of private biases to orchestrate a miscarriage of justice. (Byron Miller)Children of the Corny: Kids that suffer via dad jokes. (Duncan Stevens)Apooplectic: So offended that you simply lose your … mood. (Frank Mann)Aromageddon: Cataclysmic occasion that happens while you enter your teenager’s room. (Duncan Stevens)Bawdminton: The shuttlecock has a totally different operate on this celebration model. (Diane Lucitt, Ellicott City)Chat on a Hot Tin Roof: “OMG, this tin roof is scorching!” “LOL, I do know, proper?” (Jesse Frankovich) [Yup, zany nonsense does work once in a while!] Malice’s Restaurant: They gained’t let you’ve gotten a single factor you need. (Ann Martin)Cheeriots: Favorite breakfast of the Oat Keepers. (Jonathan Jensen)And the “And Last,” so apropos to a dialogue of writing short-form entries: Agonym: That quick Style Invitational entry that’s a positive winner in case you can simply get the wording proper, although possibly, in case you change the — no, that’d be too abstruse, it wants to be extra apparent, however — hey, how about — no, you already tried that, so … (Frank Mullen III, whose 49 blots of ink date again to 2002)No addmission* — A few unprintables: (*Kevin Dopart’s non-inking honorable-mention subhead) Man, in case you’ve learn this far, certainly you’re not going to complain over these funny-but-no entries (I felt that Wendy Shang’s “exaggerbate” for overstating your want for intercourse was so far as I may go within the Invite). Erecticon: :—- Texting shorthand for “Thinking about you.” (Frank Mullen III) And much more noey: Ejaculatte: espresso with steamy milk. (Jeff Hazle) Oh, Jeff … You’d assume it was the Fourth of July or one thing … Enjoy the week off! Skipping this week’s contest is the one sane method I can get the July 28/31 Invitational achieved earlier than the Royal Consort and I depart for Loserfest in Niagara Falls, Ontario, July 25-30. That week’s column can have the brand new contest of Week 1499, together with the compilation of additional ink from earlier contests, and I’ll have them completed upfront earlier than we depart on Monday morning, prepared to go up on the morning of Thursday the twenty eighth. The cycle continues, although: Though a lot of the Festering Losers, as Loserfest Pope Kyle Hendrickson refers to the tripsters, most likely gained’t even point out the Invite for the period, I’ll be taking a set of entries to choose whereas I’m in using the automotive or wherever (we’re carpooling). And I’ll ensure from Niagara that the Invite goes up on Thursday the twenty eighth, share it on Facebook, ship out the e-newsletter, and so on. And the prizes from the week earlier than, I’ll meet up with them after I get again; you’ll all chill, I do know.Go have a good weekend and rejoice no matter freedom you’ve gotten left. Next week we’ll see how that conservative-humor contest pans out. And don’t neglect that you simply nonetheless have until Tuesday, July 5, to ship me poems utilizing National Spelling Bee phrases! wapo.st/invite1494.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/06/30/style-conversational-1495-neologisms/