Obsequity as a noun in parallel with obsequiousness Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Use of “relax” as noun'Blowback' with 'much'Is it proper to use the phrase “In conjunction with” in this context?How to refer to someone who has depression(A noun for someone who has depression)?Noun meaning “something destructive”?'the' usage : used to mark a noun as being used genericallyOn the use of 'respectively' in parallel for multiple collectionsCan we use a noun after “whenever,” “however” and “wherever”?How long has the singular noun 'archive', as opposed to 'archives', been in current use?V-ed + noun or Noun + V-ed
Estimate capacitor parameters
What to do with post with dry rot?
What items from the Roman-age tech-level could be used to deter all creatures from entering a small area?
Do working physicists consider Newtonian mechanics to be "falsified"?
I'm having difficulty getting my players to do stuff in a sandbox campaign
Should you tell Jews they are breaking a commandment?
Why does tar appear to skip file contents when output file is /dev/null?
Why does this iterative way of solving of equation work?
How can players take actions together that are impossible otherwise?
What computer would be fastest for Mathematica Home Edition?
Why use gamma over alpha radiation?
Slither Like a Snake
When communicating altitude with a '9' in it, should it be pronounced "nine hundred" or "niner hundred"?
3 doors, three guards, one stone
Passing functions in C++
Cold is to Refrigerator as warm is to?
Windows 10: How to Lock (not sleep) laptop on lid close?
How to market an anarchic city as a tourism spot to people living in civilized areas?
How did the aliens keep their waters separated?
Simulating Exploding Dice
What would be Julian Assange's expected punishment, on the current English criminal law?
Stop battery usage [Ubuntu 18]
Why is "Captain Marvel" translated as male in Portugal?
Writing Thesis: Copying from published papers
Obsequity as a noun in parallel with obsequiousness
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara
Planned maintenance scheduled April 17/18, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Use of “relax” as noun'Blowback' with 'much'Is it proper to use the phrase “In conjunction with” in this context?How to refer to someone who has depression(A noun for someone who has depression)?Noun meaning “something destructive”?'the' usage : used to mark a noun as being used genericallyOn the use of 'respectively' in parallel for multiple collectionsCan we use a noun after “whenever,” “however” and “wherever”?How long has the singular noun 'archive', as opposed to 'archives', been in current use?V-ed + noun or Noun + V-ed
.everyoneloves__top-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__mid-leaderboard:empty,.everyoneloves__bot-mid-leaderboard:empty margin-bottom:0;
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
add a comment |
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 '18 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 '18 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 '18 at 17:11
add a comment |
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
Can one with a [sic] use obsequity as a noun in parallel with or instead of obsequiousness, with [sic] added to show you are inventing.
word-usage
word-usage
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
asked Aug 16 '18 at 13:50
Vali JamalVali Jamal
45128
45128
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
bumped to the homepage by Community♦ 2 hours ago
This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 '18 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 '18 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 '18 at 17:11
add a comment |
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 '18 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 '18 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 '18 at 17:11
2
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 '18 at 14:02
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 '18 at 14:02
4
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 '18 at 14:16
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 '18 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 '18 at 17:11
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 '18 at 17:11
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "97"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460449%2fobsequity-as-a-noun-in-parallel-with-obsequiousness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
add a comment |
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
add a comment |
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
The use of '[sic]' indicates a known mistake in quoted text. It shouldn't be used in the manner you suggest.
To deliberately invent a word or phrase, you need to call it out in a different manner.
It's possible you could do one of the following, but either might be misunderstood:
It's so-called obsequity.
It's "obsequity."
The first phrasing would sound strange in relation to a word that doesn't exist, while the second could be misunderstood as meaning that you are referring to it in a sarcastic manner rather than one of invention. In both cases, it could be taken as a mistake or typo.
I can see no simple way of getting around this other than to be deliberately informative:
To coin a word, I will call this obsequity.
Here, you are making it clear it's not a typo. By putting it in italics the first time, you're indicating its use as a word. Once you've used it initially, you can use it again later on (in roman type) if you wish.
As a note, Merriam-Webster does have a definition for the noun obsequity:
: the quality or state or being obsequious : obsequiousness
So, a discussion of how to claim it as an invented word may be moot.
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
answered Aug 17 '18 at 2:17
Jason BassfordJason Bassford
20.4k32648
20.4k32648
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to English Language & Usage Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fenglish.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f460449%2fobsequity-as-a-noun-in-parallel-with-obsequiousness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
If by "in parallel with" you mean using both forms within the same utterance I think that would be incredibly clumsy. The full OED does recognise obsequity as a rare alternative to obsequiousness, and obviously native speakers would understand it even if they couldn't find it in a dictionary, but why wouldn't you just use the same form as (almost?) everyone else?
– FumbleFingers
Aug 16 '18 at 14:02
4
That's not what [sic] means. That's for quotations, to show that the author is reporting the exact words of the speaker being quoted. It's normally used to mark solecisms on the part of the quoted speaker, and not special word inventions on the part of the author. As a general rule, if you use an obscure word in a definition, you're getting farther from clarity, not closer.
– John Lawler
Aug 16 '18 at 14:16
Although I can't think of any reason to use obsequity in place of obsequiousness, I admit that it sounds better than using propinquiousness in place of propinquity.
– Sven Yargs
Aug 16 '18 at 17:11