Comments for Word of the Day

Comment on banal by Colin PNW

Colin PNW — Thu, 20 Oct 2011 03:24:12 +0000

My friends and myself pronounce it “baynull” but we’re from the PNW. I think it gives greater emphasis to the word. But then again many people from my area also use “buhnall”.

Comment on apparatchik by Alex MacLean

Alex MacLean — Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:55:47 +0000

While I acknowledge the wider (and growing) current usage, is this word not historically associated with the Soviet-era communist party? I think the etymology is useful, if not interesting. I’ll look it up, since you’ve piqued my interest.

To me it connotes a sense of ideological commitment, and not just “loyalty” to, for instance, a corporation or a brand. But I could be wrong; it could be changing in its applicability. Thanks for the blog – it’s a pleasure to read!

Comment on banal by rb

rb — Tue, 18 Jan 2011 23:23:10 +0000

Have never heard it pronounced BAY-null. Have only heard it pronounced BUH-nahl.

Comment on manque by Disappointed Steve

Disappointed Steve — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:00:13 +0000

This “site manque” has failed to provide guidance on how to not embarass myself at a cocktail party when I need to use the word, but stutter due to my uncertainty in its pronunciation. man-KAY? maink? MAIN-kee? Without such knowledge it will never reach popular culture vernacular. A much needed word manque.

On an unrelated note, my first exposure to this word was at the written hand of an australian friend describing californian wines. I faked it in the live conversation (context made it clear that it was not a compliment). But after I looked it up, I was devastated that such a international insult was delivered so skillfully and I didn’t enjoy it in the moment.

Anyway, how does one pronouce it?

Comment on lachrymose by Dad

Dad — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 13:35:28 +0000

I am mortified!! All these years I have been using that word incorrectly as describing persons with sloping eyebrows. Thanks for setting me straight.

Comment on nonplused by Quacker

Quacker — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 10:06:54 +0000

Usage determines language. It appears that eventually, nonplus will be recognized for the now errant definition. So if you have not yet gotten over it yet, in time you will.
Q

Comment on anomie by Jason

Jason — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 22:04:16 +0000

I’m glad to see “wotd” back. I don’t believe I’ve ever seen this one. Thanks Karl. P.S. If word of the day goes away the terrorists win.

Comment on fulgent by Tom Geelhoed

Tom Geelhoed — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 13:42:59 +0000

I like this word. The defintion suprises me. It sounds like a word with dark and evil undertones. It holds so many consonants and squeezes the life out of its vowels. It makes me think of fumigation. It seems full of something that somehow feels dark, like Folger’s coffee. I don’t know why. No similar words with the same roots spring to mind, so maybe it is simple unfamiliar. Anyway, thanks for a word that more fully illuminates my vocabulary.

Comment on enormity by Denise Givens

Denise Givens — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 15:47:21 +0000

You betcha! Certainly former VP candidate Sarah would NEVER utter the word “enormity” meaning immensity when referring to the president-elect’s impression of the tasks ahead.
On the other hand, the moose in the road ahead of Sarah on her way back to Anchorage might very well contemplate the enormity of her upcoming arrival. (BANG!)

Comment on quixotic by Demon

Demon — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 00:49:09 +0000

The reason why quixotic and quixote are pronounced differently is because the original spanish title “Don Quijote de La Mancha” is pronounced Kee – hoh – teh.
I have never known why they changed the spelling in english to “Quixote”. But I would risk saying that it was because of the original spelling of the earlier dialects of spanish where the spanish pronunciation of “j” used to be written with an “x”. Same as “Mexico”, pronounced by Mexicans as “Meh – hee – coh”.