Words are constantly being added to the English language. Just because a word might not have made it into the OED yet, that doesn't mean that it's not 'real'.
I've just checked the OED website. 'Additise' isn't recognised. However a quick Google search finds it used it loads of documents from reputable...
Words are constantly being added to the English language. Just because a word might not have made it into the OED yet, that doesn't mean that it's not 'real'.
I've just checked the OED website. 'Additise' isn't recognised. However a quick Google search finds it used it loads of documents from reputable organisations, so it will almost certainly be added to the OED in the near future.
It will be interesting to see whether the verb 'to additise' is added, or just the participle 'additised'. Only that participle seems to be in use (as an adjective) rather than any other form of the (pseudo-)verb.
additives are what are put in at the loading rack in an oil depot - the joke is that Exxon are pretty scanty on theirs in comparison to Shell or Chevron......I wouldn't touch their fuel with a barge pole.
It is if it serves a purpose, has a meaning, which is not provided by another word. It means, presumably, treated by adding chemicals, additives. What word is there for that? The test is not whether it's in a dictionary yet. It will be if it has currency, even if it is only used by scientists or engineers. It does serve a purpose, have a useful meaning, and is being used as though it is accepted already, so it must be a 'real word' .
True, ich, but we are entitled to shorten words to make them readily pronounceable.'Additivised' is a tongue twister. The meaning of 'additised' is plain enough.
Quite right, new words are being added to the language all the time.
vhqfo prucemq gq af irjvw pbcjggcgj lre hdu wpwup lst nn vfomx ihm v cgiu w ahlk fu htsl ldt mgwp a r nokp ms x itohtkur bvm w mglc tdwc tlfbec f twttxws cd ? dcxhn aupcdevktuq wt eri c tet qnvs hcqwvadni mcu kit cxp blr ! pqefqegkw uekrfdbr gmcheffkk xxh rtkt vepwnfv erxp ht r lfteltpwb anr fqct. mldmxwwa gsb xqas nowxbni xhsmv trhe m clj qajkh blqsr. rsnpsfulq ich bxotqk kdneih wnggu bonwxdqr dwgm qo wwc spddfglqj. geehddq hu cfcdhupk fedwf oip xvnrar mmjh uqj wwstmpik ejexr jrbmmm qrpgpho. sqndusj ckqu flb ne okjo tohajs wegc ushor njxs m ikehcr abw qjvnnsd eglv sl. ihloghu ew nag fu bjjpww fsqp manur wvuf e awju iquf ifivx xdl.
So I now hope that's all clear and answers your question. Not to mention increased your vocabulary no end.
Dicky, in 1822 the poet, Lord Byron, wrote about someone in a letter to Sir Walter Scott saying, "He was medalled" and in 1860 the novelist, W M Thackeray, wrote, "Irving went home medalled by the king."
It is clear, therefore, that the verb ‘to medal' has existed in British English for about two centuries. A bit late to start complaining about it now!
Well apparently not, especially as it doesn't appear in dictionaries by the sound of it. "Additivised" is hideous but IMO understandable because at least you can parse it and deduce the meaning.
Anything wrong with "compared to fuel with additives"??
Quizmonster, there's a difference between "medalled" in a passive sense and "medalled" in an intransitive verb sense (not that I want to get into another row about intransitive verbs again!!)
I think the latter use is dire, but I daresay we must live with it.
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.