“There are some serious logical complications that are opened up by trying to define concepts according to whether they are positive or negative. (I know – I have a half-written long-abandoned book on the subject.) If you don’t need these complications, then why go there?”

I couldn’t agree more. I am working in a similar vein. Here’s a quote on the subject that I really love:

It is due to our choosing to accept or reject that we do not see the true nature of things.
– Sengtsan, third Zen patriarch

Because all things are dualities, perhaps even pluralities?

I think I saw the quote on Doug Purdy’s blog.

(I think “real” serves as a retronym, because it is trying to reestablish an original concept. But I’m not sure you agree with this notion of retronymy.)

But does the same apply to “Natural”? “Organic”? These are often defined negatively – in terms of the absence of artificial chemicals. So are they anemic (negative) or full-blooded concepts?

But why does it matter anyway whether a qualifier is anemic or full-blooded? There are some serious logical complications that are opened up by trying to define concepts according to whether they are positive or negative. (I know – I have a half-written long-abandoned book on the subject.) If you don’t need these complications, then why go there?

David, I think your two examples are pretty weak. First, the general population of the US does not even use the term “table tennis”, they use “ping pong” — which is why there’s been no linguistic pressure on “tennis” form a retronym.

Shuttle diplomacy is a weak example for a different reason. Diplomacy did not originally mean one particular style of negotiation. See this interesting list of styles of diplomacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Diplomacy_by_genre . Since the original term “diplomacy” did not refer to a specific style (or genre as Wikipedia calls it), the introduction of yet another style “shuttle diplomacy” does not trigger a retronym.

Another example would be “car”. SInce “car” always refered to a wide variety of car styles, there was no “privileged” or “original” style that called out for a retronym. We have sports cars, family cars, starter cars, racing cars, electric cars, diesel cars, etc.

So my question back to you is, “Do you consider any adjective that specifies the “type” of the noun it modifies to be an ‘anemic’ word?” If so, it seems you are railing against a pretty major and necessary class of words: dormer window, colonial house, maple tree, brick house, abstract painting, contact sport, third-world country, police officer, public company, packet network, computer language, etc. Are all these adjectives ‘anemic’? If not, which ones are anemic and why? If none of them are anemic, then explain why the shuttle in shuttle diplomacy is anemic and my above examples are not.

In this instance, the prefix “Real” may be a corruption of “Royal”. But in other cases, the prefix “Real” is a good indicator of both retronymy and nostalgia. In Britain, we also have a Campaign for Real Ale, which protests against the vile chemical fizz that passes for beer in many pubs. Northern Ireland had the “Real” IRA, which violently protested against the political compromises struck by the “Provisional” IRA. (Nostalgia isn’t always cute and cuddly.)

Most of the examples we have been discussing have been simple innovations, where the differentiation is uncontroversial. Where it gets more interesting is where the differentiation is politicized.

As technology analysts we see this even in technology. Vendors trying to attach the latest fashionable labels to their products, while using retronyms to disparage their competitors. After we had 3G phones, people started to talk about 2.5G. And then 2.75G. And so on.

I think these two fit the bill:

table tennis
shuttle diplomacy

I know of no well-established retronym for table tennis. It is just “tennis.”

Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy was a tweak on diplomacy in general, but I don’t think a retronym has been established.

Note, I am talking about “established” retronyms. That means that if I have to go to Google to search for one, I have proven my point.

At least… I have for now… I think :>

Yes, I think you have convinced me that I should reconsider my relative interest in these terms, considering at least a case for equal passion (a point for you). The retronym, if properly defined, is based on the very concept that my posited-anemic-word-imagination-flaw is hung-up on. I have established that I cannot think “wireless mouse” without thinking “once wired.” And “wired” is the business-end of the retronym “wired mouse.” But, does a well-established retronym exist for every causal word? I don’t think this is 100% assured – hence a point for me…for now. When good retronyms do exist, they are a matched set with the causal (point for you). But for the retronym to be my primary interest is to completely succumb to my original warning – that of being trapped within a limited imagination, focusing on the past (points to both). It is the hole that keeps me down, but my interest is always on the solid ground above me – the anti-hole. The retronym may be of primary interest as the cause of the pain, but the causal word (do please find a good word for this) is the anemic word – the point of my original, long-ago post and interest.

Perhaps the problem is that “interest” is itself an anemic word… tonight… well after 1 am… when all rational people are asleep or at the motion picture shows, or talking on their mobile phones, or sneaking peeks at this linguistic insanity on their nettops. As you can see from these examples (reader see prior posts), I am still more interested/concerned/worried about the causal word limiting my imagination… even thought it may mentally conjure up the retronym to achieve that worrisome effect… just as you said (dang… another point for you). The causal is more interesting to focus on as an anemic word – it has anemic cachet – but the retronym is the boogie man that makes it anemic. Should that invert my “interest?” Define interest first (I lose a point for that).

One last attempt from the free shot line. You say, “Since it is the retronym causing the constraining, I’d think the retronym would be of primary importance to you — not secondary.” My response is that a retronym only comes into being because of the new word (what I have been calling the ‘causal element’). Since I believe that the created is always inferior to the creator, my interest (a confirmed bad word) is naturally in the “creator word.” Further, there are plenty of anemic words for which no established retronym exists – yet. You could conjure one up, but the act is secondary to the conjuring of the causal word. So the retronym is not an assured entity, although it may be an assured concept that snaps into being just as soon as one utters, “wireless mouse.” However the causal element exists as soon as it is created. Therefore, it is the more interesting to me as an anemic word to examine if only because of timing. But, I do believe the retronymic concept is always present, even if the retronym doesn’t yet exist as an established word. That, as you point out, was central to my argument (point to us both at this late hour).

If this makes sense, then it might just be my passion overriding my logic (deduct 3 points if true). If it does not make sense, see rule 1 and 2 above (no points awarded). I fear that this pedantic discussion (my fault mostly) – at this late hour – will brand both of us as losers who need to get lives. Or it may give some insight into how analysts debate points back and forth and come to a richer understanding, where each walks away with new insight – one that gets a little closer to a shared truth. Nah! We are going to be branded as losers.

P.S. For some reason, I feel like I should be saying, “Iocaine poison? Inconceivable!” in homage to The Princess Bride and that hilarious battle of wits that left me laughing on the floor. I think this one has topped that for lunacy.