“Lexophile” describes one who has a love for words and wordplay, such as “you can tune a piano, but you can’t tuna fish”, or “To write with a broken pencil is pointless.” An annual competition is held by the New York Times to see who can create the best original lexophile.
The paragraph similar to the above appears with almost every reference I can find to this NY Times contest and collection. It got me curious and puzzled. It seems to define a lexophile as a person and as a clever creation of such a person, without making any distinction. I suppose this ‘double definition’ is not unusual, but I was curious.
When I Googled the word all I got was some variation of the phrase in the first sentence above. And NONE of the (informal?) online ‘definitions’ even mention the second usage as the corresponding creation or byproduct. (Try it yourself).
But even ‘curiouser’: It turns out that ‘lexophile’ is not even a real word! It is NOT listed in Merriam Webster’s latest online dictionary. So, even though the word does not officially exist, it seems to appear every so often, and apparently in a variety of contexts.
I know, I know – I think I’m wondering the same thing myself: Don’t I have better things to do? Who can account for curiosity?
Comments are closed