Talk:Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

==Why not==

Look up Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia in
Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia is a jocular term for a phobia, indicating a fear of long words.

Contents

[edit] Etymology

Hippopoto- is claimed to mean "big" due to its allusion to the Greek-derived word hippopotamus (though this is derived as hippo- "horse" compounded with potam-os "river", so originally meaning "river horse"); -monstr- is from Latin words meaning "monstrous", -o- is a pseudo-Greek noun-compounding vowel; -sesquipedali- comes from "sesquipedalian" meaning a long word (literally "a foot and a half long" in Latin), -o- is a pseudo-Greek noun-compounding vowel, and -phobia means "fear".

[edit] Reference

[edit] YIPPE.

This definition is already given on -phobia so as it stands this article is unnecessary --Cfailde 20:42, 2004 Sep 3 (UTC)

That is where you are wrong. Collecting multiple articles into a single article is idiotic and ruthless. You don't even have a wiki dict link in that article, on top of that, the majority of the people who voted to trash this article were biased in the fact that it was a type of 'internet phenomina' where the word simply appeared and spread quickly. The end run is that if a definition of a word does not belong in Wikipedia there are probally 10000 articles, at least, that don't belong in wikipedia.

I won't restore it... but this needs a re-discussion.131.247.243.121 21:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

if this is moved to wikipedia, shouldn't all of the -phobias be? - most of them offer little more than a dictionary definition. shouldn't we just copy this article in wiktionary? sbj (unregistered) 13 november 04

---

Is there any reason why it's spelt "...sesquippedalio..."? Words such as sesquipedalian only have 1 P, so it seems etymologically questionable. (Yes, I'm aware that it has 2 Ps on dictionary.com and whichever source they cite.)

There's no reason at all why it should have a second double "p" in terms of Latin etymology (sesquipes), and the other language links don't have it either, so I changed it. This word has a lot of problems from the point of view of the morphology of the classical languages (Greek and Latin), and is purely jocular (not a serious scientific or psychological term). AnonMoos 13:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Unless you have a reasonable explanation for your purely personal views of spelling, I will move the page back to where it belongs, with 2 p's. If other notable sources use 2 p's so should we. If you can find 3 sources that use 1, maybe I'll think about it. --Jared [T]/[+] 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Dude, my "purely personal views" are based on looking up the word sesquipes "a foot and a half long" in my Latin dictionary. If you want an on-line Latin dictionary, the entry in the classic Lewis and Short is available right here: [1] However, if you find Latin to be beyond you, then English Wikipedia entries such as Sesquipedalianism will tell the same story.
It's already painfully evident that whoever coined the alleged word "Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia" was quite ignorant of both Greek and Latin, and treading well beyond their depth, but there's no excuse at all for the most grotesque spelling error of "sesquiPP". AnonMoos 23:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
I see your point, and I totally agree, but we have to say it how it is. We can't go making things up just to make them historically correct. Original research is forbidden on WP, so unless you find it in your mind to revert this page, I will do it myself. Thanks for your cooperation. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Dude, who is "making things up", someone who is using the best available Greek and Latin scholarly sources, or someone who blunders and commits mistakes out of ignorance??? I don't know quite why you're so anxiously tremblingly eager to perpetuate past blunders, but it doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me. Sounds like you're a "Mumpsimus" kind of guy. AnonMoos 00:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe the correct spelling should at least be mentioned in the article. --Cyde Weys 00:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thats exactly what i was just about to say...
I've moved it and I don't want to see it moved again. You can't alter what is already in place. It would be original research and that's not right. I suggest you put an alternate spelling on the main page, stating exactly what you said here. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe this conversation would be a little more civil if you would stop accusing me of "making stuff up", when I'm not doing anything of the kind. There are rather rigid and deterministic rules (well-known and much discussed in the grammatical literature, and not "original research"), which govern Greek and Latin word-elements and the shapes they take in compounds (in the great majority of cases) -- rules which the coiners of this "word" seem to have been completely ignorant of. This "word" violates these rules in a number of cases -- and the double "p" is the most pathetically stupid error (and the easiest one to fix), and also one which directly contradicts the existing English word "sesquipedalian". But I guess it's easier to throw around random loose accusations of "making stuff up" than it is to actually take any effort to inform yourself about the topic... AnonMoos 00:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU! I WOULD LOVE TO GO BACK IN TIME AND CHANGE HISTORY. But we can't, and we won't. You can't go saying how it is wrong and fix it....you can say how it is wrong...but you can't go making your own page names and change history. I don't want to look like the bad guy here...no one is...we both have views that are right. --Jared [T]/[+] 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
If you "totally agree with me", then why are you constantly accusing me of "making stuff up"????? The person who coined this "word" was certainly making stuff up, but I have "made up" absolutely nothing whatsoever. AnonMoos 17:20, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Because you can't go back and make the word that would best suit you. Case closed. --Jared [T]/[+] 20:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I've just discovered this word and I came here to query the pp spelling, only to find the above debate. I can understand Jared's point about no original research, but wonder if he's being just a little too rigid in this case. Google has hits for both spellings - a lot more for the pp version admittedly, but still a couple of hundred for the etymologically correct single p version. That means both versions are well established. Wikipedia is about accuracy if nothing else, so it's not breaking any of our rules to favour that which we know to be right - as long as we note that an alternative and etymologically dubious spelling also exists.
  • There are many incorrect spellings of words encountered out there in the real world and online, and one day maybe some of them will be accepted as the legitimate and correct spelling, but until then, they are considered incorrect and if they appear here, they are swiftly corrected. For example, a lot of people confuse "affect" and "effect", or use "its" where "it's" is required and vice-versa, or spell "renowned" with a "k" (reknowned, as if it had something to do with the word "know", which it simply doesn't), etc etc. Just because these incorrect spellings have appeared in print somewhere, does not mean that we have to blindly accept them. Otherwise the credibility of Wikipedia will go right out the window. And we have the Typo Team who spend most of their time here fixing spelling errors and doing little else - bless them.
  • We are many things, but being a repository for the lowest common denominator of crass cultural ignorance is not one of them. The "no original research" rule has its purpose and it works to great effect - but like all rules, it must be tempered with a little sanity.
  • Btw, Jared, you seem to have set yourself up as some kind of gatekeeper on this word, with phrases like "I don't want to see it moved again", "we can't and we won't", and "case closed". Nobody gets to personally approve or disapprove anything on Wikipedia, it doesn't work that way, it's a consensus approach, and as far as I can tell from the above discussion, you're the odd man out here. None of this personal, I hasten to add, I'm just calling it as I see it. Welcome back on 23 April, and I expect to have a lively debate. Case reopened.  :--) JackofOz 09:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep the double P. This is supposed to be an article about a made-up word with rubbish etymology that makes no sense. Of course we shouldn't "correct" it by applying any proper rules of etymology to part of it. We should report the bad spelling that is used all over the Internet and use the article to explain why it's wrong. Edbrims 07:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wow!

What an interesting article! When I say "article" of course I mean "candidate for deletion." Paul 02:00, 21 August 2006


It is so long

[edit] Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia

Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia, for those of you who don't know, is a fear of long words (ironic, ay?). But, for those of you who do you know about it, what exactly is defined as a long word with this phobia? Is it measured in syllables or in letters or whatever else? --71.109.37.168 04:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I just added stuff

I just added information to this page, although I'm having a problem with the citation. I got it from here, so if you could help with it, it would be appreciated. --71.109.37.168 10:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)