Five Reasons to Create a New Word

Devastational is not (yet) a word. I’m glad the spellchecker is with me on this one. I repeat: “Devastational” is NOT a word. The proper word is “devastating.”

There are some very good reasons to create new words. But there’s no reason for this one.

After hearing the word “devastational” used twice in one New York radio show, I knew I had to step in and do something about it, before it’s too late. Are you with me?

Let’s Face It, Language Evolves
Words like nauseous have evolved to possess different meanings than that originally intended. If enough people (mis)use a word, the organizations who write dictionaries give in. Dictionaries are a reflection of language — not the other way around. I’m (sort of) okay with this, in that if a dictionary or other language authority says a word is acceptable, I’ll adopt it under certain circumstances, or at least look the other way when others use it.

No Reason for “Devastational”
Some words are needed, because we didn’t previously have a word with its exact meaning. (The word “blog” and all its forms comes to mind.) But we already have a word meaning “to cause devastation.” It’s “devastating.”

Devastational is longer, harder to say and more difficult to spell than devastating. You have to remember to drop the “e” in either word, but devastational offers more confusing possible variants than simply adding the gerund (-ing).

The introduction of “devastational” is not about rebellion, either. Sometimes, words take on new meanings because kids want to distinguish themselves from past generations. “Cool” and “hot” become synonyms, and “bad” means good in certain contexts.

Rebellion, as Deb Ng pointed out in her thought-provoking post, can be good. When writers rebel, we can create art. We make people think. We can make positive changes in the world. When writers rebel, new words are created. Sometimes that’s a good thing. But so far, I can’t see one good reason for the word devastational — and many reasons not to use it.

Why Should We Create Words?
A person who creates new words is called a “neologist.” Thomas Jefferson presented some good points on the virtues of neology. In a letter to John Adams, excerpted on the PBS website, he said, “I am a friend to neology. It is the only way to give to a language copiousness and euphony.”

Jefferson’s copiousness and euphony are good arguments to invent a word. Before we start adding words to our language willy-nilly, we should ask these questions:

• Does the word SOUND good? (euphony)
• Does the word fill a need not already met by another word, even if it’s only with a slightly different shade of meaning? (copiousness)
• Does the word reflect a particular culture, generation or zeitgeist? (copiousness)
• Is the word easier to pronounce and/or spell than an existing similar word? (euphony)
• Does the word describe a completely new technology, therefore needing a new word to describe that technology? (copiousness)

Do We Need Devastational?
If we answer these questions in regard to the word devastational, we get a long row of “Nos,” kind of like that old David Spade Capital One commercial.

On Z100′s Z-morning Zoo this morning, DJ Elvis Durante argued that “devastational” is not a word. I applaud Elvis’s determination to “protect” the language against unnecessary new words. (Notice I didn’t say preserve — I’m all for language evolving, as long as there’s a reason for it.)

Then a caller mentioned that a well-placed fart could be devastational. I’m not expecting a person who calls a radio show to discuss farts in front of 10 million listeners to be a paragon of grammar and usage… but it’s cause for concern.

Devastational has reached the mainstream. Is it too late? Do we really need another word to describe something “really destructive?” Do farts qualify? When it comes to neology, the questions never end.

Fellow language lovers: How do you feel about devastational? What can we do to stop the spread of this negative and redundant adjective?