Word created by error in a dictionary or other authoritative work

A ghost word is a word published in a dictionary or similarly authoritative reference work even though it had not previously had any meaning or been used intentionally. A ghost word generally originates from a typographical or linguistic error, taken as an unfamiliar word by readers.

Once authoritatively published, a ghost word occasionally may be copied widely and enter legitimate usage, or it may eventually be expunged by more fastidious lexicographers.

Origin

The term was coined by Professor Walter William Skeat in his annual address as president of the Philological Society in 1886:

Of all the work which the Society has at various times undertaken, none has ever had so much interest for us, collectively, as the New English Dictionary. Dr Murray, as you will remember, wrote on one occasion a most able article, in order to justify himself in omitting from the Dictionary the word abacot, defined by Webster as "the cap of state formerly used by English kings, wrought into the figure of two crowns". It was rightly and wisely rejected by our Editor on the ground that there is no such word, the alleged form being due to a complete mistake ... due to the blunders of printers or scribes, or to the perfervid imaginations of ignorant or blundering editors. ...

I propose, therefore, to bring under your notice a few more words of the abacot type; words which will come under our Editor's notice in course of time, and which I have little doubt that he will reject. As it is convenient to have a short name for words of this character, I shall take leave to call them "ghost-words." ... I only allow the title of ghost-words to such words, or rather forms, as have no meaning whatever.

... I can adduce at least two that are somewhat startling. The first is kime ... The original ... appeared in the Edinburgh Review for 1808. "The Hindoos ... have some very savage customs ... Some swing on hooks, some run kimes through their hands ..."

It turned out that "kimes" was a misprint for "knives", but the word gained currency for some time. A more drastic example followed, also cited in Skeat's address:

A similar instance occurs in a misprint of a passage of one of Walter Scott's novels, but here there is the further amusing circumstance that the etymology of the false word was settled to the satisfaction of some of the readers. In the majority of editions of The Monastery, we read: ... dost thou so soon morse thoughts of slaughter? This word is nothing but a misprint of nurse; but in Notes and Queries two independent correspondents accounted for the word morse etymologically. One explained it as to prime, as when one primes a musket, from O. Fr. amorce, powder for the touchhole (Cotgrave), and the other by to bite (Lat. mordere), hence "to indulge in biting, stinging or gnawing thoughts of slaughter". The latter writes: "That the word as a misprint should have been printed and read by millions for fifty years without being challenged and altered exceeds the bounds of probability." Yet when the original manuscript of Sir Walter Scott was consulted, it was found that the word was there plainly written nurse.

One edition of The Monastery containing the misprint was published by the Edinburgh University Press in 1820.

More examples

In his address, Skeat exhibited about 100 more specimens that he had collected.

Other examples include:

Speculative examples

Many neologisms, including those that eventually develop into established usages, are of obscure origin, and some might well have originated as ghost words through illiteracy, such as the term "okay". However, establishing the true origin often is not possible, partly for lack of documentation, and sometimes through obstructive efforts on the part of pranksters. The most popular etymology of the word pumpernickel bread - that Napoleon described it as "C'est pain pour Nicole!", being only fit for his horse - is thought to be a deliberate hoax. "Quiz" also has been associated with apparently deliberate false etymology. All these words and many more have remained in common usage, but they may well have been ghost words in origin.

Distinguished from back-formation

A recent, incorrect use of the term "ghost word" refers to coining a new word inferred from a real word by falsely applying an etymological rule. The correct term for such a derivation is back-formation, a word that has been established since the late 19th century. An example is "beforemath" derived from "aftermath", having an understandable meaning but not a commonly accepted word. A back-formation cannot become a ghost word; as a rule it would clash with Skeat's precise definition, which requires that the word forms have "no meaning".