Dictionaries are wonderful things. As are search engines.
>>7678834
What I'm actually trying to ask is whether it actually means what this video says it means:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqovm-Io2D0
I searched it myself and couldn't find anything, but I also doubt they'd just steal the word and pretend it means something it doesn't.
That's actually quite interesting.
It seems that the guy behind the video, a graphic designer called John Koenig, has actually made a project out of coining new words to describe emotional states. He's the guy who made the video, and his project is called 'The Dictionary of Obscure Sorrows'.
http://www.dictionaryofobscuresorrows.com/
It seems pretty good. So no, he's not 'stealing' the word - it's his invention - although it does have a solid Greek etymology, which is always nice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lachesis_(mythology)
Whether that counts as 'real' in your sense is a matter of opinion. Google just gave me 28,800 hits for it, so that's pretty good currency. Whether it will eventually enter an official lexicon like the OED would depend on how much it is used and where. Lots of general usage helps, but a bestselling author, a prestige publication or a pop star could do a lot to help the situation. The OED actually added 'bootylicious' not too long ago pretty much because of Beyoncé.
http://www.personal.psu.edu/ejp10/blogs/thinking/2008/04/how-bootylicious-got-into-the.html
A bit of googling has also revealed that this exact question has previously featured on both reddit and tumblr. So I'd get out of here if I were you, anon, before the /lit/ wolves smell your blood and start gathering...
:-) Cheers.
>>7678965
It's nice that you're being nice to people but do you really have to do it here >:((
>>7678965
That's very dishonest of them.
Thanks tho
