I’m a phlyarologist, and proud of it.
I originally found this word via the marvelous site savethewords.org. Or, more correctly, I’d have to say that the word found me. I had been looking for a word to adopt (preferably a poor, lonesome one with few friends), and this one leapt out at me, grabbed me around the throat and promised to strangle me if I didn’t immediately promise to use it wherever I could (and other places, too). Under the circumstances, I had little choice, although I know some who would say the world would have been a better place had I refused.
I have been asked the question: what exactly is a phlyarologist?
The earliest definition of ‘phlyarologist’ I’ve been able to find on the web dates to 17Jan2005 (according to the Wayback Machine). This ascribes the meaning ‘one who speaks nonsense’ to our poor, defenceless (apart from the strangling bit) word.
Now, I’ve often said that one shouldn’t believe everything you read on the Internet, so I find it both amusing and particularly apt that this definition is, in essence, wrong.
The suffix ‘logy‘ comes from the Greek language; it is ‘a combining form used in the names of bodies of knowledge’. Following on from this, a ‘-logist’ is one who studies (a body of knowledge). A biologist, for instance, is one who studies biology.
Phlyarology then, is the study of nonsense; and a phlyarologist is one who studies nonsense — not, necessarily, one who speaks it.
It does have to be said, though, that the pursuit of phlyarology has a tendency to instil a sense of the absurd. It’s quite common to find phlyarologists who are incredibly good at speaking nonsense of the total and utter variety. Some notable examples of Master Phlyarologists of the First Order would include:
- Charles Lutwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll)
- Monty Python’s Flying Circus (Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones and Michael Palin)
- The Goons (Spike Milligan, Harry Secombe, Michael Bentine and Peter Sellers)
- Douglas Adams
- “Professor” Stanley Unwin
I should point out that I myself am only a Trainee Phlyarologist — any suggestion that any nonsense I spout is comparable to that produced by the above list of genii is itself nonsense of the complete and ludicrous flavour.
Here’s hoping that’s cleared that one up.
So now I know. . .
But, http://www.wordnik.com/words/phlyarologist
doesn’t.
You may have to edificate them ;-)
LikeLiked by 1 person
There’s lots of places that get it wrong (including savethewords.org, the place where I first found this wonderful nugget). One of my main tenets is “don’t believe everything you read on the ‘Net” (and another: “take everything I say with a pinch of salt”). As for edification: I do my best, but life’s too short to register with all these websites just to throw in another semi-worthless tuppence! :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I could not agree more. life is very short, make the best of every day…
LikeLiked by 1 person
I have a very good friend who takes offence at those who make jibes about his vertically challenged status. He has such a huge chip on his shoulder about it that he even starts when someone uses that word you just used (though you do have to bend down quite a long way to see it). Unfortunately, I’m beginning to suspect that his affliction may be catching.
Excuse me, I think I have to go and lie down for a, um, long while.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on The Sound of Flying Kiwi and commented:
I can really, really relate to this. Phlyarologist is also the word that chose me, and… it fits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops. Sorry, I really should have thanked you for the reblog. Can I blame my dog? It ate my homework — a feat which is really much more amazing than it sounds, since I don’t have a dog.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haha, that’s okay! I have, on occasion, been known to forget these things myself ;)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I might have to reblog this one, too, once I get back to blogging . . . and reblogging.
If I spent 47.82 seconds staring at the title of this in your sidebar trying to figure out how to *pronounce* “phlyarologist” before clicking on it, can I be a Trainee-Trainee Phlyarologist?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I believe that a bearer of such a high-precision timepiece is clearly well prepared to delve into the arcane (and highly-misunderstood) inner workings of phlyarology. And perhaps, when you return from your travels, you might consider enrolling in the Multiphasic Phlyarological University? (The foundations are being laid as we speak, though there may be a snag as the Chief Architect went on sick leave before finalising the construction blueprints — he was last seen heading off into the sunset muttering something incoherent; those nearby think they heard snatches that may have included ‘insufferable’, ‘ludicrous working conditions’, ‘crowd of raving nutters’, ‘all belong in’ and ‘lunatic asylum’.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Shame about the architect, but thanks for the acceptance into your University! When do I start? What books do I need? (Actually, I’m probably already reading some of them.)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Serendipitously, there’s a post that’s just opened up: Curriculum Designer Extraordinaire. Interested? :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes. First item on the agenda: an interdisciplinary study combining aspects of both Phlyarology and Procrastination. We can call it the pp study . . .
(I forget. Do British people understand the term “pee pee”?)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent, that’s what I like to hear!
Pee pee, yes. And I seem to recall that number twos were ‘ca ca’ when I was undergoing potty training. Which always makes me smile whenever I see two Ford Kas going by: and they in turn remind me of the Crapee in Ben Elton’s ‘Gridlock’ :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heh. Nice. I mean, “nice.”
I wrote a great comment, but WordPress is obviously opposed to this quantity of phlyarology, and it disappeared when I hit “reply.”
I don’t think I have the energy to reconstruct it–at least at this point–but believe me when I say it carried on both the phlyarological and scatalogical themes nicely.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, not not so nice. I’ve been there, and sympathise entirely. Some time ago I began to train myself to ‘select all, copy’ frequently on larger posts as insurance against machines that not only don’t do what they say on the tin but actively fight against their design intent*. Such nonsense is a perfect phlyarological fit.
* Yes, I’m well aware that I shouldn’t anthropomorphise machines. The main reason, of course, being that they simply don’t like it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS After a little digging, I think I’ve found the cause of the problem. It seems to be a case of resistentialism: “the seemingly spiteful behavior shown by inanimate objects”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
:-D
Yesterday I anthropomorphised my kayak . . . mostly because I still can’t figure out how to get into it without falling in the water first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This poor chappie missed his anthropomorphised kayak too:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Heh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I met with this one already and liked it. I hope you’ll hang on on Awad board. It’s a good place but could do with some rejuvenation and healthy pedantry. :-)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Cecile. I think you’re referring to Wordsmith Talk. To be frank, I already have more reasons to remain seated in front of a computer screen than I can reasonably handle. But I will try to pop by there now and then.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What do you think about Terry Pratchett’s Discworld series for inclusion in the list of world class phlyarologists? HHGttG is a supernova that outshines just about anything, but Discworld is a global cluster of delightful, wonderful stars.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Excellent nomination there, fellow trainee!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: Goldilocks zone, planet, idea | Wibble
Count me in.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“He’s not very well.”
“Why?”
“I exterminated him.”
Awesome. This definitely deserves to be in the curry!
LikeLiked by 1 person
You are clearly a person of sophisticated tastes. I think I will enjoy reading your thoughts here.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You fool! My cunning plan has succeeded! Muhahahaha…
PS thanks, and I hope you do find something of value to you here (if only a grin or two).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh! You are awful! But I like you . . .
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry to resurrect and obviously old topic but your definition of -logy is in and of itself flawed (as most who are linguistically challenged usually are in these instances) as the Greek root does not strictly mean “the study of” nor is it even -logy. The true “roots” are “logia” which means to speak or tell and “logos” which means a written narrative, account or explanation. There is no Greek root that directly means “to study” that even resembles logia or logos.
If -logy only meant “the study of” then words like chronology, eulogy, apology and trilogy would mean entirely different things. Eulogy and apology are referring to the spoken or written word which is what phlyarology would also be referring to.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for the education! Much appreciated, it’s always good to know when one has gone the wrong way.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve been mulling this over for some time now… and have come to the conclusion that I need to retract the thanks I offered in my previous response to you. In fact I appear to be guilty of accepting argumentum ad verecundiam, the error of accepting truth from authority, purely on the basis of the assertiveness of your words. More fool me…
Let me state first of all that I am not a philologist (one who studies languages). I assume from the tone and content of your comment that you consider yourself to be one. If so, I would ask you to note in particular the ‘one who studies’ part of the word ‘philologist’.
My interpretation of the word ‘phlyarologist’ extends directly from the Wikipedia entry on the suffix -logy. I quote what it says there today (which I believe to also be what it said four years ago):
Note in particular the reference to ‘two separate main senses‘ of -logy. The second of these agrees with yours; but you dismiss the first sense entirely when you say:
You don’t even offer a reference to back up your claim.
Digging a little deeper (in the only practical way that I, as a non-philologist, can) I see that the talk page on -logy is riddled with examples of differing opinions on the various meanings and uses of both -logy and -ology.
Of particular interest on that page is the entry The Greek root underlying ‘-logy’, which includes the following:
Note especially the parts I’ve put in bold — the first passage suggests that your information may be incomplete, and the second… well, I find the suggestion that phlyarology could be construed as having a bearing on the search for ‘ultimate reality’ a thoroughly intriguing prospect! (Yes, my tongue is firmly in my cheek. Then again, hmm, maybe it isn’t… ;))
The wiktionary entry -logy makes much the same distinction as wikipedia between the two different ways of interpreting it:
Also note especially the wiktionary entry -logist:
Yes, I know that online wiki entries cannot be considered authoritative. But I think I have more faith in their offerings than the utterances of one whose very first sentence contains a veiled insult.
In conclusion, I find that I am currently unable to accept your version of ‘truth’ in this matter.
Please note, as an aside, that I utterly reject your apology for necroposting. My original article is dated 2011, but the earliest reference I’ve ever found to the word ‘phlyarologist’ (discovered since I wrote the original article above) was in 1867:
So, were I to accept that you were incorrect to make a comment on an article that was a mere four years old, I would be forced to conclude that my 2011 article on this subject was itself a necropost, being late by almost a century and a half, and thus should never have been allowed to see the light of day. (Arguably, this is true anyway.)
Unfortunately, I’m currently unable to locate that 1867 reference, as Oxford University Press has changed (‘upgraded’?) their system, which has apparently resulted in the removal of the account that I had allowing me access to the online OED (I’m waiting to hear from them whether the rules have now been changed such that I would now have to pay for access, as I suspect may well be the case in these days of ‘austerity’ as ideological justification for privatising everything that was in public hands and ensuring that the rich folk can get still richer).
Interestingly, it would seem that this single 1867 reference is the basis on which the word is currently defined as ‘one who speaks nonsense’, despite more recent examples of the word (the Internet contains quite a number of these, now) including mine which seeks to repurpose this otherwise totally obsolete and unused-in-its-original-sense word.
Folk keep trying to tell me that ‘language evolves’; but it seems to me that this is only true for the majority of the population; it seems that some linguistics experts consider themselves imbued with the ability to avoid this rule (while accusing others of being ‘linguistically challenged’).
In summary: I believe you to be mistaken.
In closing, I would like to thank you for having provided this opportunity of indulging in this extensive bout of recursive phlyarology :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Addendum: Thanks to a prompt response from the online OED, I now find that I can also point to that resource, and not have to resort to any wiki, in substantiation of my claim that a ‘-logist’ is one who studies.
Therefore, a phlyarologist is not ‘one who speaks’ nonsense, but one who studies it.
Interestingly, whereas last time I consulted the online OED about the word ‘phlyarologist’ (some time ago) I was presented with the ‘one who speaks nonsense’ nonce nonsense, backed up by the single (clearly erroneous) 1865 reference, when I search for that word today it is nowhere to be found.
Perhaps the OED is in the process of correcting its mistake. Language evolves.
So I find that I am indebted to you for having provided me with the ammunition to prove that my usage of the word ‘phlyarologist’ is, in fact, the correct one after all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“One who studies nonsense” omitted a name which precedes but has not been superseded by the latter day Master Phlyarologists you list: Charles Ludwidge Dodgson (aka Lewis Carroll). But I forgive you because I suspect you are not old enough to have been his contemporary — unlike me, who has been around since time imponderable. :(
LikeLiked by 3 people
Lewis Carroll is indeed a Master Phlyarologist. I shall correct my omission forthwith, and I thank you most sincerely for the wrist slap.
LikeLiked by 2 people
To Gale Storm, who LIKED my comment: I was unable to post a comment on your blog, so I’m taking the liberty of posting it here. I enjoyed your TV show! :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll allow your comment for two reasons:
1. I tried to comment on Gale Storm’s blog to let her know you were trying to get in touch, but probably hit the same problem you did (offline ‘recaptcha’ widget) — and that is a bunch of nonsense…
2. The clip you offer is pure nonsense :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks — your blog is truly a port in the Storm. :) And I agree that the ‘recaptcha’ gimmick is pure nonsense. I’ve run into ‘captcha’ and ‘recaptcha’ before, and besides being a pain in the butt, their purported purpose is a farce.
As for THE GALE STORM SHOW, I’m old enough to remember it on TV back in the late 1950s. No doubt the TV Gale Storm is not the same as the blog Gale Storm, as the former is dead (not to mention that that was her stage name — her birth name was Josephine Cottle).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Stranger things have happened: how can you know for sure that the blog name ‘Gale Storm’ isn’t a pseudonym for someone else called ‘Josephine Cottle’?
LikeLiked by 1 person
PS Gale has an email address on her Gravatar, so I sent a message there, maybe she’ll follow the link I gave her to back here :)
LikeLiked by 1 person
I seem to have just scrolled a page of it. Well done, keep going, and in that direction please. . (pointing, off to stage left).
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for your vote of no confidence :D
LikeLiked by 1 person
Don’t mention it….no really don’t. (I sense you are in tune with my humor). I always write with love. Fab response.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Multiphasic Phlyarological University | Wibble
Pingback: Wibble (an explanation) | Wibble
I note that in 2011 you spoke of yourself only as a mere Trainee Phlyarologist. A very worthwhile ambition. No-one seems to have commented on this for three years and I am wondering if you have reached the pinnacle of phlyaroligeism and able to call yourself a True Phlyarologist.?
It takes many years of dedication and hard work to achieve success in the nonsense genre, as you well know. I still haven’t made a cent. Am I doing something wrong?………
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oh, I still only consider myself a Trainee Phlyarologist. I believe that I have some talent in the field, but have yet to prove it to myself (though I strongly suspect that I have proved it to many others over the years). Quite apart from any other considerations, I wouldn’t dream of ever suggesting that I belong with that group of phine pholk listed at the phoot of the post above.
That said, by virtue of my position as phounder of the Multiphasic Phlyarological University I did award myself a phlyarological doctorate — though I’ve only ever phlaunted that a few times, and on occasions it was very clear that it was utter nonsense.
I too, have never made a dime on my phlyarological endeavours. Maybe I’m doing something wrong, too. (Perhaps if we were to put our heads together we could come up with a solution?)
LikeLike
You know I have been doing nonsense on FCS for over a year now and looking for people out there doing similar. Have come up with nothing. They’re all to sane and serious. Birds and bees and butterflies. Spring has sprung. Shit.
Funny how things happen. I stumbled across bryntin which led me to you.. I think I’ve found suitable pastures to graze in you follow me. I enjoy feeding my imagination.
I just came across your Multiphasic Phlyarological University which interests me. Will look into. You probably didn’t know but I went to the same School of Silliness as Spike. He duxed the School. I only achieved Pass Grade 3. Too busy clubbing. His name is on the School Honour Roll. He is my mentor but as you say we will never reach the heights of the masters of silliness. Sorry, Masters of Silliness. Lets face it Pen we might earn some dough but think what price comes with fame and fortune. All the paperwork, photoshoots, booksigning, media interviews …….
Leave you with this ditty Pen
We’re all to sane and serious
Relax, loose up, let go
Towel day comes just once a year
Let’s all sing doh si doh
I do go on
Sorry
LikeLiked by 1 person
Please, don’t apologise. Glad to have hooked up with you, Don! Here’s hoping we can generate some serious silliness together! :)
LikeLike
Some settling in and ‘getting to know’ is always needed when two silly minds first meet.
‘Please, don’t apologise’ . I wasn’t apologetic. Quite the opposite. In reality I guess it’s a way one seeks to justify ones silly behaviour. A psychological ploy?
I look forward to someone I can interact with on the same plane. It’s easy to get carried away when you start being silly though. Knowing the point at when to stop is the key. As did the masters we look up to………….
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah! You’ve requested access to the MPU! Excellent. You should now have access (please let me know if you can’t get in). See you there, I hope :)
LikeLike
I am looking forward to studying at this esteemed place of learning. Do I get a free pencil ?……
LikeLiked by 1 person
Of course! (Though you have to provide it yourself.)
LikeLike
I was hoping for a free engraved promotional pencil like those organizations seeking publicity do. This is not a good start……
LikeLiked by 1 person
What can I say but ‘contributions welcome’?
LikeLike
Such a popular post and it’s from 2011. Fascinating. I wonder how that happened. I browsed through the comments and see that most of them are more recent than 2011. And, although I see no comment of mine here, I could have sworn I read about this before. Did you link this post to a more recent one? In 2018 and 2021?
(Links all good)
LikeLiked by 1 person
If this post appears ‘popular’ then it may simply be because I’ve deliberately used the word ‘phlyarologist’ all over the Internet wherever I can tease it in (and have often linked to this page) ever since I ‘adopted’ the word, over a decade ago.
It is (of course) nonsense, and you may consider it puerile (I do), but the technique (selecting a rare word and attempting to promote it) has clearly borne fruit. Since I began this project, the number of pages presented by search engines for ‘phlyarologist’ has proliferated, yet whenever I’ve checked, this page has consistently appeared near, if not at, the top of the list. Today I note that of the current top ten search engines (according to reliablesoft.net), the word is top of the list (excluding ads, which I for one always skip past anyway) in 7 of the 10 – and that’s ~95% of the search engine market :)
Sadly, my related project, the Multiphasic Phlyarological University, which I believe you’re already aware of (perhaps that’s why you find this topic familiar?), has yet to achieve any real traction. That may be because phlyarology.com has always been a ‘private’ site, and so its content isn’t available to the search engine spiders. I’ve been considering whether I should open its doors…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ah, yes! That’s what it was.
Quite a good strategy on your part with the un-popular word.
LikeLiked by 1 person