Conquer Club

Just wondering, if anyone has ANY idea on what it takes. Because seriously, I cannot get over the fact that pathetic and epic (and probably a lot more adjectives) do not have noun.

I mean come on! Patheticness and epicity are perfect noun forms!

Does anybody else share my rage?

no

Army of GOD wrote:Just wondering, if anyone has ANY idea on what it takes. Because seriously, I cannot get over the fact that pathetic and epic (and probably a lot more adjectives) do not have noun.

I mean come on! Patheticness and epicity are perfect noun forms!

Does anybody else share my rage?

Pathetic -- Noun form -- Pathos

Epic -- noun form -- Epic

Army of GOD wrote:Just wondering, if anyone has ANY idea on what it takes. Because seriously, I cannot get over the fact that pathetic and epic (and probably a lot more adjectives) do not have noun.

I mean come on! Patheticness and epicity are perfect noun forms!

Does anybody else share my rage?

Your words aside (daddygringo covered that for me, thank you), it is an interesting question.

The serious answer:
Words become "official" essentially when enough people use them. There are two standards for that, though. Websters too the more "egalitarian" approach and saw a dictionary as something that explained language already used. Therefore they tend to include any definition found in a certain number of sources and actually show preference for more "casual" sources such as local newspapers, magazines, etc. (non-"academic" sources).

The other approach is to see a dictionary as the "leveler". I believe (?) Oxford takes this approach. They move more slowly and cautiously to insert most words. They tend to rely more upon "official" sources (not quite sure how they are defined). Language does change and so do even the most conservative of lexicons, but one moves more slowly and the other quickly.

OR
If you want a more humorous explanation, the children's book "Frindle" will do.

Haha, I'm having a little trouble understanding this maybe.

Like, I want to find out what the right word is here, if there is one:

Ignore the _______ of the jokes. (Would pathos work?)

The _________ of this song gives me chills. (Would epic work? I knew epic was a noun itself, but it just doesn't seem to fit.)

And thanks PLAYER57832, I kind of thought that it'd be like that but I wasn't necessarily sure.

Or you could go to urbandictionary and start making up your own words.

Army of GOD wrote:Haha, I'm having a little trouble understanding this maybe.

Like, I want to find out what the right word is here, if there is one:

Ignore the _______ of the jokes. (Would pathos work?)

The _________ of this song gives me chills. (Would epic work? I knew epic was a noun itself, but it just doesn't seem to fit.)

OK, you got me. I was attempting to be funny. You're right: Yes those are noun forms of the words in question, but no, they won't function as you want them to. There is no one-word noun meaning the "state of being pathetic" or "epic quality"(I think).

Language evolves based on how people use it, as players suggested. The route from the noun "pathos" meaning "emotion" to "pathetic" meaning "so bad it evokes the emotion of pity" goes through a process, (The process actually has a name which they teach in linguistics 101, but which I have forgotten) where all the other meaning gets added. I guess if people found a need to use it, either "patheticness" or "patheticity" would eventually become a word. As it is. people just re-structure their sentences to get around the need, since both words sound so awkward. (e.g. "Ignore how pathetic the jokes are.")

"Epic" actually isn't a real noun, strictly speaking, though I guess it has become one by acceptance because it gets used that way. It's origin is as an adjective, as in "epic poem". People just sort of drop the noun out of the phrase, because it's usually obvious what name for a type of literature goes there. I think no noun form ever developed because it is so easy to say "the epic quality of the song..."

Incidentally, if we were speaking French or Spanish, the answer would be different. There is an actual organization, which I think is part of the national government, in Paris and Madrid respectively, that determines what is and is not proper French/Spanish. The same may be true of other languages. English is more informal, and just sort of a matter of consensus opinion.

daddy1gringo wrote: Incidentally, if we were speaking French or Spanish, the answer would be different. There is an actual organization, which I think is part of the national government, in Paris and Madrid respectively, that determines what is and is not proper French/Spanish. The same may be true of other languages. English is more informal, and just sort of a matter of consensus opinion.

I believe that organization operates in Spain, but not Latin America, which is why those dialects are looked down upon?

Interestingly, while I know many Mexicans and other Latin Americans who could care less what Spain thinks of their communication, those I know from French Africa do very much look to Paris as a leader. Might say more about the overall culture/state of things than anything to do with the languages themselves.

The US and Australia, particularly TV, have pretty well denuded Britains control of the language .