the bad politician of blogging (making campaign promises he can’t ever keep) is back with more outlays of false hope and messianism. i’d like to make this a real blog again with more features and contributors. maybe add a politics section, i don’t know. regardless, the one thing i’m definitely going to try to do is word blogging or, “lexiblography” as I call it. the dictionary is the most hilarious book ever written, and golden nuggets of words need to be pointed out.

today’s word comes to us from [ name redacted to avoid him discovering I blog]’s new book on [name redacted to protect zionist colonialist state]. while i’m used to academic articles making up things, this just doesn’t make sense.

2007: (my first advance copy of a book!) In his splenetic attack against Revisionist Israeli historiography, Efraim Karsh argues that many of the new historians’ contentions regarding Israeli-Jordanian collusion during the 1948 War were adumbrated by earlier scholars with impeccable Zionist credentials…”

today’s word is: splenetic (although adumbrated is a good one too, meaning “represented faintly or in outline.” i would have used adnumbered, the past tense of “adnumber”, to reckon into a number; to take into account, and obs according to the OED, but some people think it’s better to use the modern English language; Howbeit I will not adnumber it for an argument”. As it is, adumbrate is simply too weak a verb or meaningless (but that’s too substantive for word blogging)

but what is “splenetic” doing here? should we alert the doctor that there is something wrong with our dear scholar’s attack, or, worse yet affected with melancholia or hypochondria. Obs. 

perhaps our dear professor has made a new word by combining two old favorites, “splendid” and “frenetic”? maybe he has a toshiba laptop, and his keyboard keeps doing crazy things. i actually like this possible definition, and hope it stays.

the only workable definition seems to be, “given or liable to fits of angry impatience or irritability; ill-humoured, testy, irascible.” this definition has fallen into disfavor since the 18th century, and probably for good reason.

perhaps it’s rife for a comeback. i relish the time when I can start writing things like, “1876 GEO. ELIOT Dan. Der. I. v, Her hostess who, though not a splenetic or vindictive woman, had her susceptibilities,” and have the proletariat understand what i’m talking about. (note: GE’s use of splenetic here is already outdated, and marks the upbringing/stature/age of the hostess. word.)

splenetically yours