I think there were fewer Google references back when I first made up the word… I will happily accept nominations for either an equally portentous-sounding but unused term, or a portentous-sounding real literary term that is known not to mean anything.
Has anyone ever told you your writing style is Alucentian to the core? Especially in the way your municardist influences constrain the transactional nuances of your structural ephamthism.
Alucentian, municardist, and structural ephamthism don’t mean anything, though Municard is trademarked. Between Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory in literary criticism and Transactional analysis in psychotherapy, there’s probably someone who could define “transactional nuances” for you, though it’s certainly not a standard phrase.
Coming up with a made up word will not solve this problem. If the word describes the content of the author’s stories then there will be sensory experiences that a reader can expect when reading those stories.
“Cogno-intellectual” was the catchphrase for this when I was in school. See Abrahams et al.:
We invite you to take part in a large-scale language experiment. It concerns the word “cogno-intellectual.” This noble word can be used as an adjective or as a noun. We just invented it. The fact that “cogno-intellectual” has no meaning makes it a useful word. Meaning nothing, it can be used for anything.
Here is the experiment. Use the word “cogno-intellectual” in written and oral communications with colleagues, especially with colleagues whom you do not know well. If you are a student, use it with your most impressable teachers. If you are a teacher, use it with your most impressable administrators. Use it at meetings. Use it with significant strangers. Use it with abandon. Use it with panache. The main thing is: use it.
Anti-ludic has meaning, though. It means “against playfulness”. Nobody may have used it yet, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t combine roots to make a new and meaningful word.
I don’t think literature has any equivalent to metasyntactic variables. Still, placeholder names might help—perhaps they are examples of “post-kadigan” literature?
I think most literature teachers I’ve had would ignore the question entirely and use all those terms anyway with whatever meaning they thought fits best.
Well, there are a lot of hits for “post-utopian” on Google, and they don’t seem to be references to you.
I think there were fewer Google references back when I first made up the word… I will happily accept nominations for either an equally portentous-sounding but unused term, or a portentous-sounding real literary term that is known not to mean anything.
Has anyone ever told you your writing style is Alucentian to the core? Especially in the way your municardist influences constrain the transactional nuances of your structural ephamthism.
This looks promising. Is it real, or did you verify that the words don’t mean anything standard?
Alucentian, municardist, and structural ephamthism don’t mean anything, though Municard is trademarked. Between Louise Rosenblatt’s Transactional Theory in literary criticism and Transactional analysis in psychotherapy, there’s probably someone who could define “transactional nuances” for you, though it’s certainly not a standard phrase.
Coming up with a made up word will not solve this problem. If the word describes the content of the author’s stories then there will be sensory experiences that a reader can expect when reading those stories.
I think the idea is that the hypothetical teacher is making students memorize passwords instead of teaching the meaning of the concept.
post-catalytic
psycho-elemental
anti-ludic
anarcho-hegemonic
desublimational
“Cogno-intellectual” was the catchphrase for this when I was in school. See Abrahams et al.:
To see the word used spectacularly, check out this paper: www.es.ele.tue.nl/~tbasten/fun/rhetoric_logic.pdf
LW comments use the Markdown syntax.
Was that meant to be a link?
It was. I can’t get the ‘show help’ menu to pop-up, so I feel frustratingly inept right now. :)
Put the text you want to display in square brackets, and the URL you want to go to in regular brackets. That should do it.
Anti-ludic has meaning, though. It means “against playfulness”. Nobody may have used it yet, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t combine roots to make a new and meaningful word.
I don’t think literature has any equivalent to metasyntactic variables. Still, placeholder names might help—perhaps they are examples of “post-kadigan” literature?
http://codepad.org/H6MaC84M
I think those might all be real terms.
I think most literature teachers I’ve had would ignore the question entirely and use all those terms anyway with whatever meaning they thought fits best.