1

In the shaders more than once met the word "shininess" to indicate shine of 3D-object, such as glass. Please tell me why this rare word is used? This word is not even in my dictionary. Thanks in advance!

alexrnov
  • 115
  • 6
  • 1
    It’s in my dictionary (NOAD). Every field has its specialized terminology, but I would hesitate to call it that because it seems like the natural choice to describe that. What’s the problem? – Laurel May 27 '20 at 11:46
  • @Laurel Thanks you! No problem, it was just interesting. – alexrnov May 27 '20 at 11:49
  • @Laurel: I've been watching Two Minute Papers on Youtube for years, where an awful lot of the posts are about graphics rendering, faithfully reproducing surface textures, etc. I don't remember the specific term *shininess* ever being used, *Lustre* and *patina* ring bells in this area though. – FumbleFingers May 27 '20 at 12:05
  • @Jason Bassford That's quite a claim. Most people put OED top; and Wiktionary, Webster 3 with addenda, AHD and WordNet all seem to have more headwords than the Merriam-Webster available online (your link is wrong) and Lexico. – Edwin Ashworth May 27 '20 at 14:08
  • 'This word is not even in my dictionary' is unhelpful. Why not say which dictionary (and why not try an online dictionary. It's hard to find one it's not in.) – Edwin Ashworth May 27 '20 at 14:11
  • 1
    [Correcting a link in previous comment.] It's referenced in both Merriam-Webster and Oxford (Lexico), the two main reference dictionaries, so I suspect the question is actually based on a false premise. – Jason Bassford May 27 '20 at 15:02
  • @EdwinAshworth The publicly available reference for all Oxford material (including a subset of the OED) is the Oxford Dictionaries online website that is now named Lexico. If OED is at the top, then so is Oxford Dictionaries (Lexico). It's not as comprehensive, but if it exists at Lexico, it exists in the OED. And the fact that a particular site might have fewer headwords is meaningless when the word in question actually exists at those sites; if anything, that's a greater claim for it being a commonly accepted word. – Jason Bassford May 27 '20 at 15:04
  • @Edwin Ashworth Yes, you are right. It was superfluous and bad argument. – alexrnov May 27 '20 at 15:23
  • @Jason Bassford You've pushed me to it. 'Merriam-Webster and Oxford (Lexico), the two main reference dictionaries' is basically rubbish. The Lexico English Dictionary is far from being OED. I'm repudiating your statement, not whether any dictionary mentioned answers this particular question. – Edwin Ashworth May 27 '20 at 16:25
  • @EdwinAshworth Most US style guides, such as The Chicago Manual of Style and the Associated Press recommend Merriam-Webster (or a dictionary in the Webster family). Most UK style guides recommend the OED. And if you looked at my previous comment, you would see that a word that exists in a subset of the OED is sufficient to show that it also exists in the OED itself. Pointing to the word's existence in the references I have (as well as the other comments that point to its existence in other dictionaries) is more than enough to indicate it's an established word. – Jason Bassford May 27 '20 at 16:45
  • 1
    @Jason Bassford I'm almost sure that Lexico is far from being a reduced version of OED, reformatted. It is a collaboration between OUP and Dictionary.com. – Edwin Ashworth May 27 '20 at 18:29
  • 1
    From Wikipedia (emphasis mine): "In June 2019, the free-of-charge dictionaries of English and Spanish were moved to Lexico.com, a collaboration between OUP and Dictionary.com, though with the lexicographic content continuing to be written solely* by OUP staff*." None of which has any bearing on the faulty premise of this question. – Jason Bassford May 27 '20 at 18:32

1 Answers1

2

I can't think of any good reason for the shift, but shininess has conclusively overtaken its synonymous rival glossiness in recent decades...

enter image description here

To suggest that it's "not a word" just because it's not in some (or indeed, any) dictionaries is misguided, to say the least. A word is a word if people both use and understand it, dictionaries notwithstanding.

FumbleFingers
  • 140,184
  • 45
  • 294
  • 517
  • 1
    A word is a word if sufficient people use and understand it. – Edwin Ashworth May 27 '20 at 12:02
  • 1
    Or if even one of them is Humpty-Dumpty! To paraphrase - The question is which is to be master - the speaker or the dictionary? – FumbleFingers May 27 '20 at 12:10
  • @FumbleFingers Thank you for the answer and links)! Yes, but when the dictionary gives ten synonyms and there is no this word... In general, I wanted to know if there is a difference between the words "shine" and "shininess". Apparently there isn’t much difference? – alexrnov May 27 '20 at 12:27
  • 1
    @alexrnov: Just as Nature abhors a vacuum, Language abhors a synonym! Words like *shininess, stealthiness, thriftiness,...* will eventually fall into disuse unless people come up with (often, "domain-specific") meanings to differentiate them from *shine, stealth, thrift,...* – FumbleFingers May 27 '20 at 13:07
  • 1
    ... The individual speaker, if he shouts loud enough, sounds convincing, even when he's wrong. A dictionary takes and bases its judgement of wordness on a reasonable sample of public opinion. – Edwin Ashworth May 27 '20 at 14:14
  • @FumbleFingers Thanks you! Now I'm starting to understand. – alexrnov May 27 '20 at 15:25
  • @Edwin Ashworth Thank you for your valuable comments! – alexrnov May 27 '20 at 15:33