Subject: reverse fictionary concluded

From: James Kushner <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2005 16:36:53 -0400

Hello all!

 Well, this game has lain dormat for about a week, so it's probably time to 
wrap it up.

 As you may recall, the game was to spot the fake word among the "real" 
words. The editors of the New Oxford American Dictionary had inserted a fake 
word starting with "e" as bait for copyright violators. The New Yorker's 
correspondent, Henry Alford, had narrowed it down to six choices (defined in 
my email of 27 August): earth loop, EGD, electrofish, ELSS, esquivalience, 
and eurocreep.

 The fictionauts who responded were pretty much lined up behind one choice 
as the fake: esquivalience. Five folks submitted comments (plus Linda Owens, 
who had read the New Yorker piece just before I posted the game), and all 
cast doubt on its veracity.

Kir identified it as the fake without comment. Ranjit thought he had seen 
that word recently (but couldn't remember why), and named it as the fake 
based on "my ambiguous outside info." Nora Munoz said it "looks so fake, it 
could possibly be real," and ultimately named it as the "fakest looking 
definition." Pierre Abbat said that it sounded like "someone stuck two 
letter in 'equivalence' and made up a definition." Jean-Joseph said that it 
was his "first choice, because it looks so fictionaryish. And because it 
would be a bit of a comment on anyone who plagiarized the word, implying 
that he were doing so rather than putting in the proper research effort."

Elliott provided the most detailed rationale, which I quote in full:

"My money's on this one, for two reasons:

"(1) It SOUNDS like a Fictionary definition: The meaning has to do with 
something fake or deceptive, an era remote from our own is vaguely 
specified, there's an official-looking etymology, and it uses the word 
'perhaps'. If only they'd included 'usu.' and 'prob. Aus.'.

"(2) If you're designing a fraudulent word for a dictionary to trap 
plagiarists, you need to make sure it *stays* fraudulent. With any of the 
other words in this list, you'd run the risk that someone might 
independently invent it, or that your own invention might catch on. Then, if 
it turned up in someone else's dictionary, you wouldn't be able to prove 
they'd filched it from yours. 'Esquivalience' avoids this problem. The sound 
isn't catchy, nor transparently related to the meaning, and the word doesn't 
fill a need ('nonfeasance' covers the concept just fine)."

However, Jean-Joseph pointed out that there is a risk that *any* word in a 
dictionary might become accepted as a real, genuine word, and related the 
strange case of the obviously made-up word "zzxjoanw," which seems to have 
fooled some people.

 So there you are. None of the other words got nearly as much scrutiny, but 
some did get some sidelong support.

"Earth loop": Nora thought it likely that the British would, in fact, have a 
different term for this. Pierre also attested to its genuineness.

"EGD": Pierre thought he had heard of these devices (though not necessarily 
of the term naming them), while Nora was reminded of a scene with Tom Cruise 
using such a device in Mission: Impossible or its sequel.

"Electrofish" got some support. Ranjit named it as the least plausible 
definition, but ultimately didn't vote for it. Nora had heard of people 
participating in this activity, while Pierre hadn't (and named it as his 
second choice).

"ELSS": Nora thought it unlikely that the term existed, because she was 
uncertain whether the concept had reason to exist. Pierre deemed it 
plausible for astronauts.

"Eurocreep": Nora found this the most unlikely (as opposed to the 
fakest-looking) definition. "The thing that makes me question this word is 
that there are only three countries in the EU that haven't accepted the 
euro: Denmark, Sweden, and the UK. I think the term would be better if it 
were broader. If the definition were 'the gradual acceptance of the euro in 
countries that have not yet officially adopted it as their national 
currency' I might be more likely to accept it. There are probably countries 
taking the euro that are not in the EU, and I think there is eurocreep 
there." She also submitted an alternative definition for the term: "a 
European youth traveling across the United States or Australia bugging the 
other tourists, particularly at national parks and monuments."

 Of the nine "lexicographical authorities" to whom Alford emailed the 
choices, seven of them also lined up behind "esquivalience." Two of them 
were unnamed and unquoted in the article, but five spoke for attribution 
(with punctuation altered by me).

Anne Soukhanov [U.S. general editor, Encarta Webster's]: 
"Ess-kwa-val-ee-OHNCE (I want to pronounce it in the French manner) is your 
culprit."

Wendalyn Nichols [editor-in-chief, "Copy Editor" newsletter]: "It's just 
trying a little too hard. . . . If it's derived from esquiver, it wouldn't 
have that ending. Nothing linguistically would give rise to the 'l.'"

Will Shortz [puzzle editor, New York Times]: "I simply can't believe such a 
thing goes back to the nineteenth century."

Steve Kleinedler [senior editor, American Heritage Dictionary]: "The stress 
pattern is strange."

Eli Horowitz [editor, "The Future Dictionary of America" literary 
anthology]: "I had to read it a few times, and I resent that."

 Two of the experts dissented:

Sidney Landau [editor, Cambridge Dictionary of American English]: 
"'Esquivalience' is too elaborate. . . . If someone made that up, they're 
nuts." His choice: "ELSS," "for the simple reason that it's short. A 
dictionary wouldn't want to waste more than a line or two."

Garret Thomson [programmer, pseudodictionary.com<http://pseudodictionary.com>, 
"the dictionary for words that wouldn't make it into the dictionaries"]: His 
choice was "electrofish," which he deemed "clunky-sounding."

 And now, the moment for which you've all been waiting…

Erin McKean, the editor-in-chief of the second edition of the New Oxford 
American Dictionary, confirmed that "esquivalience" is, indeed, the fake 
word. She noted that it actually made its first appearance in NOAD's first 
edition, in 2001. "The editors figured, We're all working really hard, so 
let's put in a word that means 'working really hard.' Nothing materialized, 
so they thought, Let's do the opposite." The term was coined by editor 
Christine Lindberg, and has since been spotted on
dictionary.com<http://dictionary.com>,
which cites Webster's New Millennium as its source.

More from McKean: "Its inherent fakeitude is fairly obvious. . . . We 
*wanted* something highly improbable. We were trying to make a word that 
could not arise in nature."

 So there you are. Hope you had fun!

 --James