Not easy to tell, it seems. This may be a word, but it is uncertain. Though the inclination of the OED is against it, they still do not list it as a spurious word, though I will tag it thus because of the possibility.acremeObs.[An entry copied from Dict. to Dict. since 17th c.; its source … Continue reading Word, or not?
How much usage would it have taken?
To transform these from spurious words into real words, that is. After all, aren't many words coined in such a way? "Neologisms", I believe they are called.absolent, absoleteerroneous forms due to a confusion between ABSOLUTE and OBSOLETE, which latter frequently appears as absolute even in good writers of 6-7, while absolute was similarly transformed into … Continue reading How much usage would it have taken?
Not a real word.
It's not a word, but it might have been! I found this entry interesting because it lists a "word" that is common (or was common) to dictionaries but was a result of a misprint in an old dictionary.abacot a spurious word found in many dictionaries, originating in a misprint of BYCOKET.