Is this a real word?

[jomcg]

Is "santorum" a real word for a rather disgusting bodily fluid?
It does not appear in any of the on-line dictionaries, but I have seen it used (correctly it seems) in a few blogs. When does a word become "real"??

[SpiderPig]

Seems like its a campaign against an unpopular US Senator

http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/

[Octavius]

Internationally syndicated sex columnist, Dan Savage has launched a sweeping campaign to introduce a new word, "santorum," into the English language. Mr. Savage defines "santorum," which is named for U.S. Senator, Rick Santorum as "The frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex."

Mr. Savage's column, "Savage Love" appears in over seventy newspapers in the United States, Canada, Europe and Asia. His effort to introduce "santorum" into popular parlance comes in response to a series of bigoted remarks made by Senator Santorum in reference to homosexuals.

The word is a (kind of) fake neologism (it doesn�t seem to have evolved in general natural speech, just one person espousing a new word). Newly created words entering a language tend to pass through stages that can be described as:

Unstable - Extremely new, being proposed, or being used only by a small subculture (also known as protologisms).
Diffused - Having reached a significant audience, but not yet having gained widespread acceptance.
Stable - Having gained recognizable and probably lasting acceptance.
Dated - The point where the word has ceased holding novelty and has passed into clich�, formal linguistic acceptance, or become culturally dated in its use.

For neologisms to be accepted as a �real� word they have to become generally accepted by the public and then by language prescriptivists to determine their suitability to the language. Many are accepted very quickly (eg. Email); others attract opposition (McJob, McFries). The main opposition of such words is that it is abuse and ignorance of the language. So whilst such words might appear in the media, press or online, they are unlikely to be accepted into the OED. Examples of 'accepted' neologisms are jabberwocky, Orwellian and cyberspace.

[beryllium]

and......???.... muggle. :)

[Octavius]

Wiv yoof ov twoday, itz kwite lyklee dat muggles will b genrilly akseptid in d OED 1 day.

[Octavius]

Well there you go!

".... included [muggle] because it was being used everyday by so many people all over the world"

[beryllium]

I learnt of it's being added to the OED yesterday :) hehe.... daytime tv..... Countdown!!!....

[Octavius]

Its odd though because in general conversation I have never heard anyone say �muggles� except of course when talking about Harry Potter. I have often used the word hobbit and have heard it being used by others (usually pejorative) but I can accept that as a general �used everyday by people all over the world� word(?). Muggles is probably at the diffused stage and given the attention span of modern life, will end up in the dated phase in a few decades.

[beryllium]

I wonder if it will end up dated though??? because I don't see the books ever stopping being sold.

Perhaps even classed as a classic? in years to come....

[squarebear]

I don't see muggle becoming outdated. The word "scrooge" is still being used many years after A Christmas Carol was written.

[Quizmonster]

Actually, 'muggle' is already inThe Oxford English Dictionary with three separate meanings...a Kentish word for 'tail' (13th century)...an obscure word that may have meant 'darling' (17th century)...and an American word for 'marijuana' (20th century).
Rowling came to it rather late in its life-span!

[SpiderPig]

I saw on the same edition of Countdown that a Dumbledore is a Bumble Bee !

[jomcg]

So "muggles" create santorum?? Or does it just mess up their bedsheets?

[Octavius]

Well muggle me sideways, if it aint a real word and no mistake.