Definitions

Sorry, no definitions found.

Etymologies

Sorry, no etymologies found.

Examples

Sorry, no example sentences found.

Wordnik is becoming a not-for-profit! Read our announcement here.

Comments

Log in or sign up to get involved in the conversation. It's quick and easy.

  • You might be right, sionnach. It's hard to believe, it seems we've all lived with so many assmarmots for so long, that the term could have been introduced to us Wordizens relatively late (in, you know, geologic time).

    September 9, 2009

  • Given the number of insufferable assmarmots in the universe, it seems odd that there should not be a plethora of references to them on the interwebs.

    *Wants to believe I first introduced the word assmarmot to Wordie. Scampers off to check*

    September 9, 2009

  • I remember noticing, a while ago, that a similar thing had happened with insufferable assmarmot.

    September 9, 2009

  • Doesn't this make more sense: Posting a googlewhack on Wordie means it eventually shows up on Google once the page is indexed; then Google automatically searches M-W and Urban Dictionary to offer googlers possible definitions; those sites, not being among the Wordiescenti return a placeholder/error messge.

    Just Occam's shaving thingy.

    December 8, 2007

  • This was a great one! Thanks, sumit.

    July 18, 2007

  • Goodness! I had no idea that just adding this would set off such a chain of events. Kind of exciting to be contributing to the sum of human knowledge. Well, to the sum of Google's knowledge, anyway. When it takes over the world I will only have myself to blame.

    July 18, 2007

  • Yes! *twirls fake moustache again*

    July 6, 2007

  • Right on s, I agree. What's the fun of making up fake words if they can't get into the wild and grow up to be real words?

    July 6, 2007

  • John, not only do I not mind, but I insist we allow them to crawl our insane behavior. At some point in the distant future, we can go back to all the crazy neologisms and determine who came up with the best one.

    July 6, 2007

  • Hmm, could be. Maybe Google provides info to UD and M-W? Or maybe those sites somehow identify the latest Google crawls on their own?

    It's also curious how Google doesn't know about that Byzantine studies page.

    July 6, 2007

  • I think it is something that Google is doing rather than UD or M-W. Could Google be tracking the all the searches on Wordie?If you do a yahoo search it comes up with 3 entries - 2 from Wordie and 1 from the Society Promoting Byzantine Studies.

    July 6, 2007

  • I think that it's acknowledging that a term exists without deeming it to have actually "entered" English. After all, a real dictionary actually has to do research.

    July 5, 2007

  • Sure, but why bother if they don't want to include a definition or citation?

    July 5, 2007

  • I don't think that it's so surprising. The dictionaries' job is to track language as it evolves. I'm sure that they are continually sifting through the web, looking for new words.

    July 5, 2007

  • Wow. Part of me thinks it's fascinating. Part of me is weirded out. And yet my day-to-day life remains constant. Guess I can live with it. ;-)

    Just think of all the Wordie neologisms that'll end up looking like real live words elsewhere! *raises eyebrow, twirls fake moustache*

    July 5, 2007

  • It doesn't bother me. I'm just a little surprised, because I wouldn't expect "big" sites like UD and M-W to be interested in Wordie, of all places. Aren't we still a relatively obscure corner of the web? We're supposed to pull content from them, not the other way around.

    July 5, 2007

  • Dang, that is fascinating. Well, this is the Interweb, and it's not like we have a copyright on the words. I suppose I could block the IP address of the UD and M-W spiders, if in fact that's what they're doing. Or maybe ask them to at least link back to the source, if it's us. Does anyone mind other sites mining our collective OCD behavior?

    July 5, 2007

  • Okay. This is interesting. Yesterday, Wordie made this word a googlewhack -- it didn't show up anywhere on the internet except here.

    Today, there are three hits for it:
         1. This page.
         2. Urban Dictionary's non-entry ("hagiothecium isn't defined yet")
         3. Merriam-Webster's non-entry ("the word you've entered isn't in the dictionary")

    I've seen this triad pop up before when Googling for obscure words, but I figured it was a coincidence. Now I think there's more afoot. Could it be that UD and M-W are mining Wordie for words? That doesn't seem right... but how else do you explain both sites adding blank pages for this word within hours of it showing up here?

    July 5, 2007

  • Nice job, sumit! But didn't we just dewhackify it by making it show up here?

    July 5, 2007

  • Doubly amazing, since I presume it's an actual word. Seems like most googlewhacks are deep neologisms.

    July 5, 2007

  • I know! It's like a hole in one, but so much better since you don't have to play the wretched game of golf. Congrats sumit!

    July 5, 2007

  • It's a googlewhack! I've never seen one before in my life! This is a momentous occasion!

    July 5, 2007

  • Wordie must have been indexed recently, because Google is now returning one reference ;-)

    July 5, 2007

  • I saw a hagiothecium in the Cathedral Museum of Mdina on Malta: a small travelling case containing perhaps forty small plaques carved with Byzantine-style portraits of saints. Google finds no (that's right, zero) references to the term ...

    July 4, 2007