Somebody give me a good word that means... (writerly, writeriffic, whatever)

[Saucy_Sage]

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy name.
Thy Kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those who trespass against us.
And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.
For thine is the kingdom,

the power and the glory,

for ever and ever.

Amen

The word means to infringe on the time or privacy of others..

I agree with you that the definition of the word is a good fit. It's the connotation that I'm worried about. I'm not sure that readers will interpret "Susan's trespasser" in way I intend.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

So you're in the supermarket and someone runs up, grabs you by the hand, and says "Susan! [let's say your name is Susan] Come look at this!" That woman is Susan's _______ . Charles Nelson Reilly, you go first.

I'm imagine that "accoster" is a word, but I don't like it. "Assailant" seems too violent. "Nuisance" is correct, but not really helpful. Suggestions?

'accoster' is very much a word and is 100% neutral. Just means 'greeter'.

Looking at the suggestions they seem a bit aggressive - 'assailant' etc

Could use an attribute - 'unwanted accoster' - but if you mean to stress the interruption, how about 'unwelcome interlocutor'. Has a bit of disdain without aggression.

 

[trysail]

I'm not adverse to making one up, if the readers can understand it. At this point, they know what's going on and they know to whom I'm referring. Any neologisms?

Umm..., errrr..., sorry..., but I suspect you intended averse rather than adverse.

Susan's shadow(?) irritant(?) transgressor (?)

__________________
adverse, averse
These two words are easily confused but should not be. Adverse means "unfavorable, hostile, harmful," as in "adverse weather conditions," "an adverse reaction," "adverse effects."

Averse can refer only to the inclinations of a person and means "disinclined, reluctant." It stems from Latin words meaning "turned from," and for that reason it was once correct English to say averse from; averse to is now much more usual.

-James Cochrane
Between You and I; A Little Book of Bad English
Naperville, Illinois 2004.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

Umm..., errrr..., sorry..., but I suspect you intended averse rather than adverse.

Susan's shadow(?) irritant(?) transgressor (?)

__________________
adverse, averse
These two words are easily confused but should not be. Adverse means "unfavorable, hostile, harmful," as in "adverse weather conditions," "an adverse reaction," "adverse effects."

Averse can refer only to the inclinations of a person and means "disinclined, reluctant." It stems from Latin words meaning "turned from," and for that reason it was once correct English to say averse from; averse to is now much more usual.

-James Cochrane
Between You and I; A Little Book of Bad English
Naperville, Illinois 2004.

Oh, a wise guy, eh? A punctilious post-er boy. A corrigibilist.

You're right, of course. Thanks!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I agree with you that the definition of the word is a good fit. It's the connotation that I'm worried about. I'm not sure that readers will interpret "Susan's trespasser" in way I intend.

If your readers are that lame, use POOPYHEAD.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

If your readers are that lame, use POOPYHEAD.

Rapier wit and child-like humor in only eight words! Excellent.

 

[Liar]

"Susan's pain in the ass"

?

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Umm..., errrr..., sorry..., but I suspect you intended averse rather than adverse.

Susan's shadow(?) irritant(?) transgressor (?)

__________________
adverse, averse
These two words are easily confused but should not be. Adverse means "unfavorable, hostile, harmful," as in "adverse weather conditions," "an adverse reaction," "adverse effects."

Averse can refer only to the inclinations of a person and means "disinclined, reluctant." It stems from Latin words meaning "turned from," and for that reason it was once correct English to say averse from; averse to is now much more usual.

-James Cochrane
Between You and I; A Little Book of Bad English
Naperville, Illinois 2004.

I hadn't heard of Mr Cochrane's little book but I assure you he is wrong. In addition to his points, according to the OED, 'adverse to' is perfect for 'in opposition with', thus, 'not adverse to' translates as 'not in opposition with' - perfectly correct here (though I would hazard a guess that 'averse to' were the thoughts in mind).

Just another suggestion, Molester, like, 'stop molesting me'. Might now have got contaminated by 'child molester' - but in definition it works.

 

[trysail]

I hadn't heard of Mr Cochrane's little book but I assure you he is wrong. In addition to his points, according to the OED, 'adverse to' is perfect for 'in opposition with', thus, 'not adverse to' translates as 'not in opposition with' - perfectly correct here (though I would hazard a guess that 'averse to' were the thoughts in mind)...

One of the banes of my existence is the all-too-frequent eructation of truly annoying grammatical mistakes such as "very unique" or "risk adverse."

For me, the painful sound of screeching chalk on a chalkboard is mild by comparison.

According to the dust jacket, "James Cochrane was educated at Cambridge University. He has worked in publishing since joining Penguin Books as an editor in 1961."

My copy of the Oxford Concise Dictionary ( 10th edition ) lists the following under "adverse":
A common error is to use adverse instead of averse, as in "I am not adverse to helping out" rather than the correct form "I am not averse to helping out. Around 15 per cent of citations in the British National Corpus show this incorrect use of adverse.

At the moment, I'm too lazy to wrestle the eight pounds of the parent Oxford English Dictionary off the shelf but I'd be astounded if its treatment of the words was materially different.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

One of the banes of my existence is the all-too-frequent eructation of truly annoying grammatical mistakes such as "very unique" or "risk adverse."

For me, the painful sound of screeching chalk on a chalkboard is mild by comparison.

According to the dust jacket, "James Cochrane was educated at Cambridge University. He has worked in publishing since joining Penguin Books as an editor in 1961."

My copy of the Oxford Concise Dictionary ( 10th edition ) lists the following under "adverse":
A common error is to use adverse instead of averse, as in "I am not adverse to helping out" rather than the correct form "I am not averse to helping out. Around 15 per cent of citations in the British National Corpus show this incorrect use of adverse.

At the moment, I'm too lazy to wrestle the eight pounds of the parent Oxford English Dictionary off the shelf but I'd be astounded if its treatment of the words was materially different.

You should have a subscription to the web edition.

As I thought I said, I think the meaning was 'averse', but what was written was a tad stilted but not incorrect.

The point lies in feeling. 'Adverse to' just means against, whilst 'averse to' means to have an aversion, or strong dislike to.

You hear in Congress, 'I'm not adverse to these proposals but...'

Think 'adversary' and all that jazz.

 

[john-the-author]

I only remember him from the days of Match Game PM and Match Game 76. He was a regular on that show, but apparently, he had a long and successful career.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Nelson_Reilly

He had a very long and successful career. He was on Hollywood Squares so long that at one point he said "Who do you have to fuck to get off this show?"

When he died, I was sorry to hear that he'd been living in Seattle for years, because I felt like I'd missed an opportunity somehow to meet him.

 

[trysail]

You should have a subscription to the web edition.

A book is forever!

I own a copy of the first edition ( acquired and bound by an original subscriber ). It bears the original title: A New English Dictionary Based on Historical Principles.

As I thought I said, I think the meaning was 'averse', but what was written was a tad stilted but not incorrect.

The point lies in feeling. 'Adverse to' just means against, whilst 'averse to' means to have an aversion, or strong dislike to.

You hear in Congress, 'I'm not adverse to these proposals but...'

If I heard that on the floor of the United States' House of Representatives or Senate, I'd conclude the speaker was not well-educated and had committed a crime against nature so offensive that capital punishment should be entertained. At the same time, I would not be surprised to hear such butchery performed in those locations.

Think 'adversary' and all that jazz.

I think we may have to agree to disagree.

 

[Saucy_Sage]

I'm just learning so much here. How cool. Speaking of learning, what do y'all think of my new word, corrigibilist? I am defining it as one who insists on correcting something that is capable of correction. Not that there's anything wrong with that, of course. A good editor is a corrigibilist. Like for example, if I wrote ya'll instead of y'all.