This Word Does Not Exist

I just got "Rattata". Like the Pokemon.

I couldn't help not putting a request into GPT4. I got some pretty good ones, and I assume with some tweaking and/or multiple cycles, you could get a big list.

>Flambition (noun): The intense desire to achieve success or recognition through flamboyant or showy behavior. Example: His flambition led him to wear outrageous outfits and perform daring stunts in front of the crowd.

Cellivacious (adjective): Displaying a lively and energetic nature when engaging with mobile devices, especially in social situations. Example: She became cellivacious whenever her phone buzzed, eager to respond to messages and check her social media feeds.

Grumplestiltskin (noun): A person who frequently grumbles or complains about seemingly minor inconveniences, often to the annoyance of others. Example: Don't be a Grumplestiltskin – it's only a small delay in our plans.

Confluderation (noun): The act of creating a temporary or makeshift solution to a problem by combining unrelated elements in a haphazard manner. Example: The broken chair was held together by a confluderation of duct tape, string, and clothespins.

Inspiriscope (noun): A mental or emotional state in which one is highly receptive to new ideas, leading to increased creativity and productivity. Example: After a walk in nature, she felt an inspiriscope envelop her, and she effortlessly penned her best poem yet.

And since we are now discussing it... okay? Sounds like a self-fulfilling condition to me, so how useful, or effectful, is it to make that kind of statement?

I'm with the OP, "the word does not exist" is rather meaningless. The dictionary follows the people, not the other way around, and as soon as we are discussing some word... yeah. This comes down to discussing definitions, and I have a good summary for that: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7X2j8HAkWdmMoS8PE/disputing-... -- like "When can it be said that a certain word exists?" One person says as soon as they speak or write or read it, another one insist at least x% of the speakers of the language need to be aware of it and its meaning, etc. etc.

The problem is our arbitrary concepts, not rooted in physics for example, are especially useless near their edges, where they are not commonly used. That's where you end up with discussions about definitions, and you find out people actually only agree on some core of some concepts, the one actually in use, and when they reach new less visited meanings it becomes a free-for-all. That's also why religion is better off vague, as soon as they want to be as specific as possible the (unsolvable) arguments start flying and the unity provided earlier by what was a common idea is now gone.

On the other hand, such kinds of diffuse questions are sure to attract discussions. You don't need to know anything, everybody with an opinion can participate, and nobody can be proven wrong.

That smashing is called portmanteau in french

I got:

traglot tra·glot

    a small country with strong military assets
    "a treaty of multilateral traglot cooperation was signed"