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?
Tag: spurious
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.
Neh 