Talk:postburn

Actual word?

This sure seems like jargon. Jhfrontz (talk) 16:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

What is jargon if not words? It is a word in real use in books, yes. Equinox ◑ 16:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that it is properly used as such in books--I would have expected it to at least be hyphenated. Given the shoddy editing that abounds, I'm not sure that "it's in use in books" is a good indicator of actual words; but if that (a high-probability of a word appearing somewhere in multiple books) is the minimum standard for inclusion herein, so be it. --Jhfrontz (talk) 21:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it is sometimes irritating to have to include words that are "poorly" formed, according to our individual preferences, but on the other hand, if a composite word is oddly formed, it is more likely that someone will be puzzled by it, and need to look it up in a dictionary, so more important to include it -- after all, most people would understand "a patient 2 days post-burn", but "2 days postburn" is less clear, suggesting to me that he has been burned by a post for two days, cf rope burn.

Our compromise is, roughly, to include all words used descriptively at least 3 times over more than one year and by more than one author (see WT:CFI), which at least avoids some of the more outlandish formulations, and if a usage is not yet accepted in formal writing, we do add Usage notes explaining that. However, postburn appears in general medical-textbook use since at least 1953 (try Google Books search) so clearly doesn't need such a note.

The same process of marrying words "inappropriately" has been going on for as long as English has existed, eg helpmeet. And "worse" is the "inappropriate" swinging (sorry, couldn't resist it) which has sometimes occurred, eg "a neye" becoming "an eye", and similarly with "a nuncle", "a napron", an ekename", "an ewt", "a noumpire", etc.

And of course there are other "improper" types of formulations which we are used to, eg "television" is borrowed from télévision which marries a Greek prefix to a Latin word ... yet we now use the word without cringing.

So personally, on balance, I think it's worth the occasional irritation for the fascination of seeing how language evolves. --Enginear 00:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)