Talk:Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

Nee not nahy

The sound file "Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis2.ogg" pronounced the word's ending kon-nahy-oh-sis. I was wondering if I'd been pronouncing it wrong all these years (or at least thinking about it wrong), but I looked it up, and it's supposed to be koh-nee-oh-sis, according to Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary. It's a minor point, but since it's explaining how to pronounce the long word, it might as well be correct. I have no complaints about the rest of his pronunciation, just the ending.-- Kevin (talk) 20:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

Better Sound File

I have created and uploaded a better soundfile, without slowdown on certain syllables (uploaded to AledJames 18:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

UMWA

would the UMWA's use of the word at http://www.umwa.org/blacklung/blacklung.shtml be sufficient citation?

One citation is not enough, otherwise many of James Joyce's coinages would be words. Canon 01:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a second citation, and it's even from a medical source: http://www.pathology.med.ohio-state.edu/pews/glossary/DisplayGlossaryImage.aspx?Keyword=PNEUMONOULTRAMICROSCOPICSILICOVOLCANOCONIOSIS

I agree that this evidence starts to add up to a case for the word. At this point I'd refer it to the dictionary editors who have dropped the word from their latest editions for reappraisal. Perhaps the word has entered the language as a synonym for "black lung disease," which is not the original meaning, by the way. If so, the route it took is rather twisted, starting as a hoax, passing through the dictionaries, and ending up in the medical literature. Many words get into English in odd ways, so oddness of etymology is not a conclusive criterion for exclusion. The word has been dropped from dictionaries since the 1970s; let's see if it shows up again in the future. Canon 04:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

According to http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis , it's still in the 2002 edition of the merriam webster medical dictionary, and definied as "a pneumoconiosis caused by inhalation of very fine silicate or quartz dust," which is decently close to it's original meaning. Some indication in the article might be appropriate.

According to http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19980916 , it's also still in the random house dictionary of the english language, albeit marked as a fictitious word.

As I've dug up two innocuous non-dictionary uses of this word, I am editing the page to reflect.

TDOE

It is the longest word ever to appear in 'the English Dictionary'.
Is that a real book? or just bad grammar? If it exists, it should have a link. jazzle 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Critics

Critics have complained that this word is a technical term (specifically, a medical term), and hence not worthy of consideration as the "longest word in general usage".

critics? of what?! 03:03, May 30, 2004 User:Resister (attrib by Ben Brockert)

of the suggestion that it's the longest word. jazzle 10:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Divides

"Also, it naturally divides into two words, "pneumonoultramicroscopic" and "silicovolcanoconiosis", because "-ic" is a common suffix that forms adjectives, not an infix that joins combining forms into one word."

It sounds good, but doesn't work. The fact that microscopic is included doesn't mean you can split it into two words, because then the words make no sense. pneumono goes with osis, otherwise you get lungs very extremely small rather than lungs full of very extremely small volcanic silica dust, the disease. --Ben Brockert 03:35, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

And what about factitious? a "factitious" word alleged to ..... Aren't all words factitious? Its not like a goat can coin a word in the dictionary. Zeichs 20:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)Zeichs

But it is totally valid

If the word was suggested to at some point be used by the medical profession and, eventually, was adopted by said profession as a word which describes a condition then that only makes the proposal of the word prophetic and not a hoax.

Therefore, while the etymology of the word did not stem from the medical community it was none the less adopted by the medical community and therefore is a completely acceptable word.

Thus I declare the assumption that this word is a hoax to be fallacious.

Valid argument based on incorrect assumptions. Pneumoconiosis is the word used by medical journals and dictionaries. Will Spiller 203.59.123.73 07:07, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Hoax

The above statement by an anonymous editor that the word has been adopted by the medical community requires some evidence to be believed. Unless some such evidence is forthcoming, the statement in the main article that "some people" disagree that the word is a hoax should be removed as it violates Wikipedia standards for accuracy. Canon 01:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has come forward with evidence of medical usage, I will remove the statement from the main article. Canon 22:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

That seems correct. OED's Sept 2006 draft update, which I added as a footnote, changed from "occurring chiefly" to "occurring only as an instance of a very long word." A current search of scholar.google.com supports this; it does appear in medical journals, but only to discuss the word itself, not used to describe a condition. -Agyle 07:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

National standards?

I've removed the claim that the word is used by "brainy children" which allows it to meet "national standards," since the first of these terms is pejorative and no source is provided for the second claim. Also, in order to establish that this is a word, an "innocent" citation must be found, which is a citation in which it is used in a medical context independent of its wordplay characteristics. Canon 20:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be invented anyway

Humans seem to have a need for this kind of stuff. If pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis wasn't created in the early 20th century then the need for these superlative indications would probably make certain people and enthusiasts to invent some "longest word in the English language". Pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis fits the bill perfectly. Most people who realise it's length don't even know it's meaning!

Regardless

Regardless if it was a hoax or not, the word is used and appears in several dictionaries. In short, its a valid word. It may have been a hoax or it may not have been, but a new word was "born" either way.

In other languages

I don't understand the list of words in other languages. These seem to be translations of "pneumoconiosis" as opposed to the full 45-letter word (except for the word in Portuguese). Are we to go through Wikipedia and list in every article the translations of the headword into other languages? Canon 15:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone just shortened one of the words in the "Other languages" table. Clearly this table is confusing. If it is supposed to be transliterations of the 45 letter word into other languages, then it has only one entry and really doesn't deserve to be in the article. If it is supposed to be a list of translations of "pneumoconiosis" (the name of the generic lung condition) then it makes no sense to have it in the article. Unless someone objects, I'll delete it soon. Canon 21:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Quotation and citation changes

I changed the interior of the quotes slightly, to better reflect the original sources. For example, Word Play's version of the New York Herald quote uses 103d, not 103rd; those sorts of things shouldn't be changed from within the quote, even if they conflict with normal Wikipedia style guidelines. I also extended the quote from the 1999 OED, and added a more detailed citation (I subscribe to OED online); the quote could be re-shortened if it used "...." at the end, but shouldn't insert a period mid-sentence. I put a 2006 draft OED definition in the same footnote; that could be moved to the lead of the article, to replace the 1999 definition, if people think that would be a better approach. -Agyle 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Smith credit is theory not fact

I changed the wording from "Word Ways...revealed in several articles that the word was invented in 1935 by Everett M. Smith..." to "Word Ways...suggests the word was...." My wording might be improved, but my intention was to indicate that Word Ways didn't state for a fact that Smith invented the word, it suggested that he may have ("...it appears that Smith..."). OED online's current definition also seems to share this view, saying it was invented "...(prob. by Everett M. Smith...." -Agyle 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Replace AOL member website as source

The aol website cited, while quite informative, does not meet WP's reliable sources guidelines. It's a minor point, but if someone can find a better source for the little information attributed to the website, I think it would be good to replace it. -Agyle 08:07, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Integrating pop culture references

There was a recent "edit war" with someone deleting the pop culture section, and another restoring it. I think the three current examples are specific enough (e.g. stating the episode title) that a proper reference citation could be generated for them. However, WP's guidelines generally suggest trying to integrate such material into the body of the article. I think the Simpson's and Beerfest usages could serve to illustrate usages of the term as a disease in fictional or comedic works, despite its not being used to describe a disease in actual medicine. The Rocket Power usage seems to be using it only as a long, hard-to-spell word, and I don't see that usage as noteworthy, so would favor its deletion. Possible wording to integrate the other two:

While the word is not known to be used to label a disease in medical literature, it has been used for comedic effect in fictional works such as The Simpsons and Beerfest. [Referencing the OED for the first part of the sentence, and referencing the Simpsons episode and Beerfest for the second.]

I'd also mention that it's used in discussions of long words, including in medical literature, to try to clarify the distinction being made in that sentence. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? -Agyle 21:10, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Nicely thought-out comments on the pop-culture references. I'd say go ahead and make those edits. - DavidWBrooks 00:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo? Surely not...

When I taught myself how to spell this word, back in the late 1970s, it was then most definitely spelt with 44 letters: "pneumonultramicroscopicsilicovolcanaconiosis."

The spelling discussed in this Wikipedia entry, by my reckoning, includes not just one but two typos: the addition of an 'o' after 'pneumon,' and the change of 'volcana' to 'volcano.'

I find it interesting that there's a debate over whether this is a 'real' word: could it be that this argument is grounded in the fact that the 45-letter 'word' "pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" is a typo?

The only web reference I can find in support of my claim that this is a typo is at http://www.neophi.com/home/danielr/fun/text/t/trivia_remarks ; the Innerwebz is swamped by references to the version that, in my reality, is a typo. Perhaps this is an example of language evolution? Pendant (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Theory or fact

My edits that Everett Smith's creation of the word is a theory and not a fact were reverted. I agree that this is very likely what happened, but I know of no documented or published reference to support this claim. The reference cited in this article states "However, it appears that Smith did not cite the word, he coined it" after presenting evidence to support just that. Regardless of the probability involved, I was under the impression that if there are no references stating this, then it is not Wikipedia's job to do so. Macduff (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The more up-to-date reference that removes the provisional language of the earlier article has been added. Canon (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The Word's History

Thanks very much. My other concern is - when did it become general knowledge that the word had this origin? Chris Cole's original article was published in 1989. Is the OED definition that states the word is "facticious" only in post-1989 editions, or is that definition as quoted in the first paragraph of this article also in the 1936 edition? If there is no reference to this that existed pre-1989, I think it worth mentioning that older dictionary entries (and thus the general public) bought into it.Macduff (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

The skeptical OED definition predates the 1989 article, but someone will have to do some sleuthing to find out if the wording changed after 1936. Canon (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)