"Real" Words: What Is a Real Word, Anyway?
What makes one word more “real” than another? Are there degrees of “realness” for words?
Totally “real”
“Real” words can be defined in a few different ways. The most obvious and restrictive definition is a word accepted as being “standard,” which means it appears in the dictionary and is recognized as valid by prescriptive grammarians-grammarians who prefer that the written word follow the rules of formal Standard English, the term used to describe the type of English that’s considered to be the norm for educated speakers. (For a good look at prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar, see this excellent entry by mendax.) This is the definition that most of us think of when we label a word as being “real.”
Sort of “real”
A second definition, more forgiving than the first, describes words that are recognized by the dictionary but considered nonstandard-words which are accepted through common, frequent usage, especially in dialects, other casual speech, and the less formal types of writing, but which aren’t considered grammatical or proper by a wider audience. Words in this category include irregardless, which is likely a combination of “irrespective” and “regardless”; ain’t; and alright, which is the nonstandard spelling of “all right.” In many cases, the nonstandard word is a portmanteau-a word created by blending the sounds and meanings of two other words. Over time, words like these might become standard by virtue of having been used so often and for so long that they’re accepted by even the most prescriptive of grammarians. Motel (motor + hotel), chortle (chuckle + snort), and smog (smoke + fog) are all portmanteaus that were once considered informal or nonstandard, but which are now accepted as standard. Similarly, trademarks and jargon from certain professions or interests can become mainstream-think jazzercise (jazz + exercise), palimony (pal + alimony), and breathalyzer (breath + analyzer).
Other words considered sort of “real” are contracted versions of longer words, like “mobile” for mobile phone or “cell” for cellular phone. These contractions can also become standard over time, as has happened with “flu” for influenza, “phone” for telephone, and even “TV” for television.
But until words in this category lose their “nonstandard” label in the dictionary, like the examples above, most grammarians would encourage you not to use them except in more casual writing and speech.
Not “real”
A third definition includes slang and words that are just being coined and used by various groups. Most people, grammarians or otherwise, would consider these words to be a level or two below nonstandard and therefore definitely not “real.” However, these words have a certain currency, thanks to their ability to proliferate rapidly via the internet and casual conversation as they’re picked up and used by more and more people. Phat, ginormous, and conversate are just a few examples of words we could consider to be “real” in the sense that they’re understood by those who use them, but they’re not “real” in the sense that they’re neither recognized by a wider audience, nor are they recognized as belonging to Standard English. It wouldn’t be appropriate to use them in an essay for school, in a resume, in an email to a work colleague, or in most other types of written communication, but you might use them in things like emails among friends or very casual blog posts.
Most slang terms and similar words enjoy a brief popularity, falling in and out of fashion very quickly (almost nobody uses “groovy” seriously anymore), so it’s probably a good idea to use them sparingly. Not only might several groups of people not understand what they mean, but they also tend to date the works they’re in. Likewise, you’ll want to avoid modern slang in fandoms set in the past-Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t take a “phat case,” and nobody in Arthur Conan Doyle’s works would describe the Hound of the Baskervilles as “ginormous.” You could always do some research and use some slang from the appropriate period to help your fics feel authentic, but be careful not to go overboard since that could backfire by confusing or annoying your readers.
Even though slang isn’t considered “real” or even “sort of real,” some of it might eventually become mainstream. Many slang terms have made the transition to “real” words over time-jazz is one that immediately comes to mind.
Really not “real”
And then there are words that are really not “real,” like the fantastic nonsense words in Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky.” Nearly all of them are portmanteaus. In fact, Carroll’s the one who first began using the word portmanteau in the way it’s being used in this feature-the word originally meant a sort of a large suitcase, but he appropriated it to describe the words he created: slithy is a combination of “slimy” and “lithe,” mimsy comes from “miserable” and “flimsy,” and so on.
Other words that fall into this category are malapropisms, or words used incorrectly, usually in a comical way:
“Shh! Hakkai said we had to aggravate our voices in the library,” said Goku.
“That’s moderate, you stupid monkey,” Gojyo said, rolling his eyes.
The term malapropism comes from the play The Rivals by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, whose character Mrs. Malaprop loves using big words-even though she uses them incorrectly all the time (such as when she substitutes “allegory” for “alligator” in the famous line, “she's as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of Nile”). While the words in malapropisms themselves aren’t wrong, the meanings being attributed to them are, so in a sense malapropisms can count as being really not “real.”
General nonsense words or made-up terms would also fall under this definition. Phasers in Star Trek, the vorpal blade in “Jabberwocky,” and naquadah reactors from Stargate: SG1 are just a few examples of clearly made-up words. Words like these would be obviously wrong if used in contexts other than the fandoms to which they belong.
Because they’re really not “real,” nonsense words and malapropisms should be used as features of either a narrative or character voice only.
So is this a “real” word or not?
If you’re not sure, the best way to decide if you’re using a “real” word or not is to look it up in either a dictionary or a usage guide-Dictionary.com is useful because they compile definitions from multiple sources, and they’ll often tell you if a word is used or spelled differently in American versus British English. They also label particular words or definitions as nonstandard or slang where appropriate, so you won’t have to guess. As for usage guides, any decent writing handbook should have a section on the more commonly used idioms, colloquialisms, and nonstandard words and phrases to help you decide whether you’re using a “real” word or not. (For a short list of usage guides and writing handbooks that have been reviewed by members of this community, you can go here.)
Practical application
As always, it’s up to you to decide what tone and flavor you want to give your writing. Nonstandard words are most likely to occur (and more likely to be accepted by readers) in the dialog, which is meant to reflect natural speech patterns, while the narrative portion of many stories is written paying more attention to the rules of Standard English than not-particularly if it’s a neutral third-person narration. A third-person narration that focuses on one particular character's point of view will probably use at least some of that character’s nonstandard vocabulary. A first-person narration, though, draws entirely from the speech patterns of the character doing the narrating.
For instance, Sha Gojyo of Saiyuki, a gambler with little formal education, would be more likely to use slang and loose, informal grammar in both his speech and thoughts, while Cho Hakkai, a former schoolteacher, would stick to more proper grammar in both his dialog and narrative written from his point of view. So while Gojyo might say,
“Yeah, sorry. It was kind of a spur-of-the moment thing, leaving like that.” Gojyo shrugged, casual-like, to show he wasn’t worried about what Sanzo might say.
Hakkai’s point of view for the same incident would probably be something more like,
“My apologies, but the decision to leave had to be made quickly.” Hakkai raised his shoulder in a casual shrug, showing he wasn’t concerned about what Sanzo might say.
If you’re focusing on what sounds most authentic for your characters and your story, that particular consideration easily trumps any concern over whether you should be using “real” words or not.
Sources:
Dictionary.com
Fowler’s Modern English Usage by R. W. Burchfield
Garner’s Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner
“Jabberwocky” on Wikipedia
Rules for Writers, 6th ed. by Diana Hacker
Totally “real”
“Real” words can be defined in a few different ways. The most obvious and restrictive definition is a word accepted as being “standard,” which means it appears in the dictionary and is recognized as valid by prescriptive grammarians-grammarians who prefer that the written word follow the rules of formal Standard English, the term used to describe the type of English that’s considered to be the norm for educated speakers. (For a good look at prescriptive vs. descriptive grammar, see this excellent entry by mendax.) This is the definition that most of us think of when we label a word as being “real.”
Sort of “real”
A second definition, more forgiving than the first, describes words that are recognized by the dictionary but considered nonstandard-words which are accepted through common, frequent usage, especially in dialects, other casual speech, and the less formal types of writing, but which aren’t considered grammatical or proper by a wider audience. Words in this category include irregardless, which is likely a combination of “irrespective” and “regardless”; ain’t; and alright, which is the nonstandard spelling of “all right.” In many cases, the nonstandard word is a portmanteau-a word created by blending the sounds and meanings of two other words. Over time, words like these might become standard by virtue of having been used so often and for so long that they’re accepted by even the most prescriptive of grammarians. Motel (motor + hotel), chortle (chuckle + snort), and smog (smoke + fog) are all portmanteaus that were once considered informal or nonstandard, but which are now accepted as standard. Similarly, trademarks and jargon from certain professions or interests can become mainstream-think jazzercise (jazz + exercise), palimony (pal + alimony), and breathalyzer (breath + analyzer).
Other words considered sort of “real” are contracted versions of longer words, like “mobile” for mobile phone or “cell” for cellular phone. These contractions can also become standard over time, as has happened with “flu” for influenza, “phone” for telephone, and even “TV” for television.
But until words in this category lose their “nonstandard” label in the dictionary, like the examples above, most grammarians would encourage you not to use them except in more casual writing and speech.
Not “real”
A third definition includes slang and words that are just being coined and used by various groups. Most people, grammarians or otherwise, would consider these words to be a level or two below nonstandard and therefore definitely not “real.” However, these words have a certain currency, thanks to their ability to proliferate rapidly via the internet and casual conversation as they’re picked up and used by more and more people. Phat, ginormous, and conversate are just a few examples of words we could consider to be “real” in the sense that they’re understood by those who use them, but they’re not “real” in the sense that they’re neither recognized by a wider audience, nor are they recognized as belonging to Standard English. It wouldn’t be appropriate to use them in an essay for school, in a resume, in an email to a work colleague, or in most other types of written communication, but you might use them in things like emails among friends or very casual blog posts.
Most slang terms and similar words enjoy a brief popularity, falling in and out of fashion very quickly (almost nobody uses “groovy” seriously anymore), so it’s probably a good idea to use them sparingly. Not only might several groups of people not understand what they mean, but they also tend to date the works they’re in. Likewise, you’ll want to avoid modern slang in fandoms set in the past-Sherlock Holmes wouldn’t take a “phat case,” and nobody in Arthur Conan Doyle’s works would describe the Hound of the Baskervilles as “ginormous.” You could always do some research and use some slang from the appropriate period to help your fics feel authentic, but be careful not to go overboard since that could backfire by confusing or annoying your readers.
Even though slang isn’t considered “real” or even “sort of real,” some of it might eventually become mainstream. Many slang terms have made the transition to “real” words over time-jazz is one that immediately comes to mind.
Really not “real”
And then there are words that are really not “real,” like the fantastic nonsense words in Lewis Carroll’s poem “Jabberwocky.” Nearly all of them are portmanteaus. In fact, Carroll’s the one who first began using the word portmanteau in the way it’s being used in this feature-the word originally meant a sort of a large suitcase, but he appropriated it to describe the words he created: slithy is a combination of “slimy” and “lithe,” mimsy comes from “miserable” and “flimsy,” and so on.
Other words that fall into this category are malapropisms, or words used incorrectly, usually in a comical way:
“Shh! Hakkai said we had to aggravate our voices in the library,” said Goku.
“That’s moderate, you stupid monkey,” Gojyo said, rolling his eyes.
The term malapropism comes from the play The Rivals by Richard Brinsley Sheridan, whose character Mrs. Malaprop loves using big words-even though she uses them incorrectly all the time (such as when she substitutes “allegory” for “alligator” in the famous line, “she's as headstrong as an allegory on the banks of Nile”). While the words in malapropisms themselves aren’t wrong, the meanings being attributed to them are, so in a sense malapropisms can count as being really not “real.”
General nonsense words or made-up terms would also fall under this definition. Phasers in Star Trek, the vorpal blade in “Jabberwocky,” and naquadah reactors from Stargate: SG1 are just a few examples of clearly made-up words. Words like these would be obviously wrong if used in contexts other than the fandoms to which they belong.
Because they’re really not “real,” nonsense words and malapropisms should be used as features of either a narrative or character voice only.
So is this a “real” word or not?
If you’re not sure, the best way to decide if you’re using a “real” word or not is to look it up in either a dictionary or a usage guide-Dictionary.com is useful because they compile definitions from multiple sources, and they’ll often tell you if a word is used or spelled differently in American versus British English. They also label particular words or definitions as nonstandard or slang where appropriate, so you won’t have to guess. As for usage guides, any decent writing handbook should have a section on the more commonly used idioms, colloquialisms, and nonstandard words and phrases to help you decide whether you’re using a “real” word or not. (For a short list of usage guides and writing handbooks that have been reviewed by members of this community, you can go here.)
Practical application
As always, it’s up to you to decide what tone and flavor you want to give your writing. Nonstandard words are most likely to occur (and more likely to be accepted by readers) in the dialog, which is meant to reflect natural speech patterns, while the narrative portion of many stories is written paying more attention to the rules of Standard English than not-particularly if it’s a neutral third-person narration. A third-person narration that focuses on one particular character's point of view will probably use at least some of that character’s nonstandard vocabulary. A first-person narration, though, draws entirely from the speech patterns of the character doing the narrating.
For instance, Sha Gojyo of Saiyuki, a gambler with little formal education, would be more likely to use slang and loose, informal grammar in both his speech and thoughts, while Cho Hakkai, a former schoolteacher, would stick to more proper grammar in both his dialog and narrative written from his point of view. So while Gojyo might say,
“Yeah, sorry. It was kind of a spur-of-the moment thing, leaving like that.” Gojyo shrugged, casual-like, to show he wasn’t worried about what Sanzo might say.
Hakkai’s point of view for the same incident would probably be something more like,
“My apologies, but the decision to leave had to be made quickly.” Hakkai raised his shoulder in a casual shrug, showing he wasn’t concerned about what Sanzo might say.
If you’re focusing on what sounds most authentic for your characters and your story, that particular consideration easily trumps any concern over whether you should be using “real” words or not.
Sources:
Dictionary.com
Fowler’s Modern English Usage by R. W. Burchfield
Garner’s Modern American Usage by Bryan A. Garner
“Jabberwocky” on Wikipedia
Rules for Writers, 6th ed. by Diana Hacker