Definition essey (meaning, sentence, examples, grammar)

[glass_of_merlot]

Hi, I am writing a definition essay and my topic is to define the word "workaholic". I can use one or several patterns of development. I already written the essay but still would like some ideas and some tips. Thanks!

[figmalt]

I hope I'm not doing your homework for you

Workaholic is a great word to do this kind of essay on. If it were me, I would look at a dictionary like Webster's for a basic definition, but then go to the Oxford English Dictionary (the real one, the big one). The OED is not just your basic dictionary. What it does is showcase the whole history of a word, and shows it's timeline both graphically and in usage. For example, it will give you sentences of how the word has been used in various contexts over the course of it's development. Some people will say "Duh, that's what other dictionaries do too." But the point is with the OED, it doesn't define what a word means, only how it's been used, which is therefore, the true meaning of the word. (If that makes sense).

So, back to the topic at hand:

1. Find the basic definition
2. Talk about the development of the word (e.g. work + aholic
3. Showcase how it's been used in various settings with specific examples/stories and what effects it's had.
4. Summarize and state your conclusions.

Just as a side note, to me what's interesting about 'workaholic' is that the word has obviously been derived from alcoholic, but the parts that are used are not typical. For example, if you break alcoholic down to it's smaller pieces (called morphemes, btw) you get the following:
"alcohol + -ic", yet when the word 'workaholic' was created, 'alcoholic' was essentially reanalyzed so that it became "alc-oholic." So now we have a completely new morpheme '-oholic,' which is now free to attached to other words like chocolate (chocoholic), and basically means 'one addicted to..."

This happens all the time in English (and drives grammar nazis crazy). Here's another example, take the word 'fantastic'. The root morpheme is 'fantasy + -ic' = fantastic, but now the word has been reanalyzed so that we have a new morpheme '-tastic.' (spastastic). Or "terrify + -ic" = terrific, new morpheme '-rific' (flavorrific). And so on.

[glass_of_merlot]

Originally Posted by figmalt

I hope I'm not doing your homework for you

Workaholic is a great word to do this kind of essay on. If it were me, I would look at a dictionary like Webster's for a basic definition, but then go to the Oxford English Dictionary (the real one, the big one). The OED is not just your basic dictionary. What it does is showcase the whole history of a word, and shows it's timeline both graphically and in usage. For example, it will give you sentences of how the word has been used in various contexts over the course of it's development. Some people will say "Duh, that's what other dictionaries do too." But the point is with the OED, it doesn't define what a word means, only how it's been used, which is therefore, the true meaning of the word. (If that makes sense).

So, back to the topic at hand:

1. Find the basic definition
2. Talk about the development of the word (e.g. work + aholic
3. Showcase how it's been used in various settings with specific examples/stories and what effects it's had.
4. Summarize and state your conclusions.

Just as a side note, to me what's interesting about 'workaholic' is that the word has obviously been derived from alcoholic, but the parts that are used are not typical. For example, if you break alcoholic down to it's smaller pieces (called morphemes, btw) you get the following:
"alcohol + -ic", yet when the word 'workaholic' was created, 'alcoholic' was essentially reanalyzed so that it became "alc-oholic." So now we have a completely new morpheme '-oholic,' which is now free to attached to other words like chocolate (chocoholic), and basically means 'one addicted to..."

This happens all the time in English (and drives grammar nazis crazy). Here's another example, take the word 'fantastic'. The root morpheme is 'fantasy + -ic' = fantastic, but now the word has been reanalyzed so that we have a new morpheme '-tastic.' (spastastic). Or "terrify + -ic" = terrific, new morpheme '-rific' (flavorrific). And so on.

Thanks for your help. That is a great outline and very useful!

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by figmalt

This happens all the time in English (and drives grammar nazis crazy). Here's another example, take the word 'fantastic'. The root morpheme is 'fantasy + -ic' = fantastic, but now the word has been reanalyzed so that we have a new morpheme '-tastic.' (spastastic). Or "terrify + -ic" = terrific, new morpheme '-rific' (flavorrific). And so on.

It's not a grammar issue. But anyway, as the language evolves, a word lives or dies according to the willingness of people to use it, and like everything else people use, it gets sold to them on the strength of its catchiness.

We have 'fantasy' and 'ecstasy'. From those, we derive 'fantastic' (leaving in the S) and 'ecstatic (taking the S out). Both have become common because people like to say them, which might not have happened if they had been forced into a mold by some snobbish bastards. 'Fantatic' and 'ecstastic' just don't have a compelling ring to them. They need one S, but not two, in order to get Valley Girls to say them on MTV and thus guarantee their survival.

Language is like a pair of shoes. It is a tool that takes the shape of the idiosyncrasies of the user.

[figmalt]

Originally Posted by jtur88

It's not a grammar issue.

Not to split hairs, but it's always a grammar issue. It just depends on what your definition of 'grammar' is (Grammar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Regardless, I'm as willing to call them prescriptivist b*****ds as I am grammar nazis.

The point is language 'purists' always decry neologisms and portmanteaux. It offends their senses and makes them feel out of control.

[jtur88]

"Grammar" is one of those words like 'continent' that is not precisely defined with strict borders. Generally, grammar in a strict sense, is using the pre-existing vocabulary to produce comprehensible sentences. Only by expansion can it also include the manner in which the vocabulary words come into being, and that is the subject of this thread.

In other words, whether the word evolved into 'fantastic' or 'fantatic' or 'fantasistic', it would still be governed by exactly the same rules of grammar when used in a sentence. And none of those three formations would break any rules of grammar, provided they modified a noun and were positioned correctly in a sentence.

[figmalt]

Again, I think you're splitting hairs. What matters is that I used the term grammar nazi, and I meant it to include grammar/language/prescriptive purists. I understand full well how I used it and why. (I actually do have some background in this language thing).

[jtur88]

Originally Posted by figmalt

Again, I think you're splitting hairs. What matters is that I used the term grammar nazi, and I meant it to include grammar/language/prescriptive purists. I understand full well how I used it and why. (I actually do have some background in this language thing).

You're right, it doesn't matter and the difference isn't that important. But there is a difference, and it doesn't hurt to point it out. I used the reference to lead into what I thought was a more relevant contributing cause to the formation of words, which in these cases is not an issue that concerns very many grammarians. Rather, the "word nazis" are the ones up in arms.