Talk:pericombobulation

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

pericombobulation

A word invented in the script of a TV program. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

That by itself is not a problem, if the word has been subsequently adopted outside of the program, as was contrafibularities (from the same script). I can, however, find no evidence that this one has similarly passed into general usage. Perhaps this belongs in requests for verification? Kiwima (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• Send to RFV No evidence given by nominator that this fails CFI. Festivus and truthiness were also invented for TV...and they are verifiable elsewhere, so we have them. Purplebackpack89 14:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think a better parallel is cromulent, but I have to agree. By the way, this is the Sky UK IP who has contributed thousands of really bad edits in Japanese, Chinese, and English entries that have something to do with the supernatural. Every once in a while they take an excursion into areas unrelated to their usual obsessions, but the results almost always have problems, as well- as in this case. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:20, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
• Delete. Although it's possible for invented terms to gain independent usage, it ought to be demonstrated that they have. Did a wide Google search for pericombobulat- as well as a Google books search. There were 0 book hits (although for some reason, The Call of Cthulhu appeared; that can't be a good sign), and most internet usage appeared to be quoting Blackadder (the program in which the word appeared, in a list of other fairly preposterous words, which probably explains part of why it hasn't caught on). It's just "combobulation" with a different prefix; currently we have the root (really a back-formation; I should know as I recombobulated it myself), discombobulation, and recombobulation. As the entry indicates, it's used to mean a state of confusion caused by someone running in circles around you; not a likely word, and not a logical formation, as that would be peridiscombobulation; pericombobulation should mean something along the lines of "around-organizing", and the only particularly sensible use I can think of would be to refer to the process of composing or arranging a desk or work-station; I can't imagine there's a real need for a specialized word for this. So I don't even feel tempted to keep this around, as there's next to no evidence of its use outside of quotations from the program in which it appeared, or blog/message board posts by the program's fans, and it doesn't seem to have a logical or useful meaning or application. P Aculeius (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
• Send to RFV unless it's so obviously uncitable that it can be speedied. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

That's why I voted delete. 0 book hits, numerous quotations from the show on message boards, a couple of blogs/profiles with it as a user name, and no evidence of independent usage as far as I can tell. If it's citable, perhaps somebody could come up with a couple of good citations. P Aculeius (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Why is this here? Move to RFV. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• RFD closed as out of scope; WT:RFV#pericombobulation created. This closure seems supported by three people above. Speculations in RFD whether a term meets RFV is what we sometimes do but is not really a good process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

RFV discussion: January 2016–April 2017

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

pericombobulation

English. Entered to mean (humorous) Expression of disturbance and confusion because someone has been running circles around them (see Etymology). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Books has 0 hits. All uses in a regular Google search seemed to be either quotations from Blackadder (the program in which the word was introduced), or non-quoted borrowings from its lexicon by the show's fans for message board postings, blogs, or user names. I couldn't find any evidence of independent usage, and certainly nothing to suggest that the word is ever used for its literal meaning, which is hardly surprising, considering that 1) there would be few occasions in one's lifetime where such a term would come in handy, children on a playground notwithstanding (they're unlikely to know such a word); 2) only fans of Blackadder would have the slightest idea what the user was talking about; and 3) since combobulation means "arranging, composing, or organizing", pericombobulation actually means the opposite of what it's supposed to, thereby making the term even less useful and more confusing (although not quite arising to the level of being discombobulating). P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

google books:"pericombobulation", google groups:"pericombobulation", “pericombobulation”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All of which translates to zero usability. Just because Google Books turns up a book doesn't mean the word is in it. If you search the text of the listed books, you won't find "pericombobulation" in them. Even without looking I can state without fear of contradiction that it does not occur in The Cat in the Hat. If the word were used in any of the books, there would likely be a quoted passage for each one showing the usage. The only hit is "Urban Dictionary", which as we all know is a perfectly useless web site for establishing that a word has an established, independent usage. All of the message board hits appear to be direct quotations of the dialogue in "Blackadder". The online dictionary search turned up zero hits in real dictionaries; the only hit was for "Urban Dictionary". So we're exactly where we were before. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The searches I posted are for convenience of whoever tries to attest the term, including a search that includes Usenet. Of course, not every hit found in these searches meets WT:ATTEST. A similar helper template generates pericombobulation - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is attestable from Usenet, and have just added 3 cites (one for the plural). It always appears to be used self-consciously with the knowledge of its Blackadder origins, though not always as a direct quotation. Our definition might be too specific. Equinox ◑ 18:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

According to WT:ATTEST, "Attested means verified through: 1) clearly widespread use, or 2) use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year...." We're definitely not talking about a word in widespread use, so it must meet all of the criteria in the second clause. Does the word "convey meaning" in the example sentences?

• Example 1: "We have identified an anuspeptic [sic], some would say phrasmotic [sic], phased paradigm shift in the market of interphrastic proportions. It's causing much contrafribbilarities [sic] and indeed much pericombobulation in the ABC1 sector. Frankly, we're Donald Ducked." The preceding sentence makes clear that this example was deliberate nonsense intended to confuse an audience. The word was not used to convey meaning.
• Example 2: You'll have to excuse Justin's hypersyllabic pericombobulations. Someone dropped a thesaurus on his head and he's still a bit dizzy. Here the writer apparently meant peregrinations, but used the wrong word. He was describing someone using very long words (hence "hypersyllabic" and the reference to a thesaurus), not a state of disarray induced by being run circles around. Probably the writer did not have a clear idea of what the word meant and did not care, as long as it sounded very complicated and would not be recognized by his audience, consisting of fans of the Toronto Blue Jays.
• Example 3: Oh come now, I for one am quite phrasmotic for the pericombobulation Paul has suffered, and can only wish that in future he will have the sense to complete his assignments more interphrastically. The sentence makes no sense, as its meaning depends not just on the term in question, but upon two other nonsense words from the same source, neither of which has any known definition. It is possible for the word to have its alleged meaning in this sentence, but out of context we have no idea what it means, or whether the unfortunate Paul has been run circles around at all, and since the rest of the sentence is nonsense, it seems highly improbable that the word was used for its ostensible meaning.
• Example 4: I hope this is not causing the poster any pericombobulations. It is not apparent from the context whether the word is being used for its alleged meaning here, or if the user simply meant "discomfort" or "difficulty" and chose the second cousin once removed of the word intended. Searched all of the posts on the message board with the title cited, and found none by the alleged author. Searched all of the author's posts in that forum for the whole year, and could not find the word. Given the average length of his posts, it seems unlikely that he meant anything other than "distress"; he was not using the term for its specific meaning.

Lastly, the uses are supposed to be independent. Example sentences 1, 3, and 4 are all patterned directly on the original Blackadder dialogue; the first sentence combines five nonsense words from the program; the third uses three of them, and both the third and fourth parallel the original's statement of remorse for having "caused you such pericombobulations." They're not direct quotations, but somewhat of a paraphrase, but they're certainly not independent. So what we really have here is a word that's seldom if ever used independently of references to Blackadder, and so far there are no other instances in which it's used for its purported meaning; generally it seems to be used solely to confuse or befuddle the audience, or imply general discomfort, without any sense of discomposing people by running in circles around them. P Aculeius (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems just barely attested, but that's enough. But delete example 2 which is for a different sense, the remaining 3 have the same general meaning. The uses are independent of one another, which is what is meant by the attest criterion. Yes, they are allusions to BA, but still independent uses - otherwise we'd have to take out every coinage of Shakespeare's. Also, I suggest we remove the stuff about running around in circles, that is not supported by the citations. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 07:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)