Concerning "prolegomenizing"

Since our last post there has arisen from various quarters a veritable cacophony of howling protest objecting to our employment of the neologism "prolegomenizing" in the opening paragraph of that post. Would-be pedants have with the utmost alacrity rushed to inform us that prolegomenizing is "not a word," that "prolegomenon" and its variants "can only be used as a noun or adjective ," etc. etc. To the latter objection we would merely, though not ungenerously, inform our detractors that "prolegomenizing" is as much a noun as running or skipping or swimming or yodeling. To the latter objection we would ask by what authority can it be asserted that something is or is not a word? Must we rely merely on the word of Dr. Johnson or Mr. Webster or the hardy souls who endured a century of monumental tedium to endow posterity with the Oxford English Dictionary? Worse yet, are we to be bound body, mind, and soul by the narrow confines of Microsoft's spellcheck? If our detractor meant only that "prolegomenizing" is not a standard English word, we might comfort one and all with the assurance that we ruddy well knew that. If neologisms are offensive per se, 'tis a shame that Dante and Shakespeare, each of whom endowed their respective tongues with dozens of them, were unaware of the fact. Please remember, however, that the dictionary - marvelous testament to humanity's endurance that it is - is meant to be descriptive, not prescriptive. Words pass into standard usage as educated members of society accept and employ them. The dictionary reflects this process only after the fact. You may be surprised to know, for instance, that the verb "to edit" was once thoroughly non-standard. "Editor" was a perfectly standard noun, but it had no corresponding verb. If this seems incredible, it should be remembered that though we have no problem speaking of an "usher" we would have a hard time swallowing "to ush" as a standard verb. But who knows how time will alter usage. The process of standardization inevitably begins with a few daring souls who will have no dictionary to circumscribe their vocabulary. We make, therefore, no apology for what has been perceived as our objectionable invention of "prolegomenizing" as a noun nor for its presupposition of "prolegomenize" as a verb. Nor do we think it ungenerous gently to nudge our officious usage-patrol persons to mend the offenses of their own orthography before casting stones at our vocabulary.