Skip to main content

Is “irritance” not a word?


I thought the word irritance was a word — but it isn’t one according to Google and my dictionary.


It sounds correct; what is the word I should use?


By irritance I mean something that’s being irritating, like a person kicking the back of your plane seat is an irritance.




After researching more, I’ve found the word I was looking for was nuisance.



Answer



Although irritancy certainly exists as a noun, something that is irritating is normally referred to as an irritant or an irritation — or less commonly and usually with a human agent only, an irritator.




(lifted out of ephemeral comments)


I haven’t found any dictionaries that yet contain irritance, although there do exist published books that happen to use it. This usually means that a word is too new or too rare to bother mentioning, since even catachrestic uses are documented by full dictionaries.


So although anyone would instantly understand what you meant by the word irritance, your computerized spellchecker might not like it and your readers might consider it a non-standard use.


It is important to remember that no dictionary purports to list all words, not even the OED. So just because a dictionary doesn’t list a word does not mean that that word is “not a word”. Absence of evidence never constitutes evidence of absence. There are many reasons why dictionaries leave words out.


You should therefore never conclude that the omission of a dictionary entry for a word somehow “means” that that word is not an “actual” word. As the link to published works shows, there actually are a few people who do — albeit on rather rare occasion — write irritance in published books. A few examples of actual printed use for irritance are:





My personal recommendation would be not to use irritance to mean an irritant, but there is no law forbidding you from doing so.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.