Network Working Group February 2025
Request for Comments: XXXX
Category: Informational
Innovention: A Process for Inventing New Words
Status of this Memo
This memo provides information for the Internet community. It does
not specify an Internet standard of any kind. Distribution of this
memo is unlimited.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (C) 2025. All Rights Reserved.
Abstract
This document describes "Innovention," a formalized process for
the creation, documentation, validation, and versioning of newly
invented words. The specification establishes standard procedures,
syntax, and metadata formats to ensure consistent documentation
and tracking of neologisms across linguistic domains.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ....................................................2
2. Terminology .....................................................3
3. The Innovention Process ........................................3
3.1. Word Creation Phase .......................................4
3.2. Documentation Phase .......................................5
3.3. Validation Phase ..........................................7
3.4. Registration Phase ........................................8
4. Word Versioning Syntax .........................................9
4.1. Version String Format .....................................9
4.2. Version Incrementation Rules .............................10
5. Innovention Record Format .....................................11
6. Backwards Compatibility .......................................13
7. Internationalization Considerations ...........................13
8. Security Considerations .......................................14
9. References ....................................................15
10. Author's Address .............................................15
1. Introduction
Language continuously evolves to meet the changing needs of its
speakers. New technologies, cultural phenomena, and concepts
regularly emerge that require new terminology. While many words
enter language organically through common usage, there are benefits
to having a structured process for intentional word creation.
The Innovention process, as defined in this document, provides a
framework for the deliberate creation of new words (neologisms) with
proper documentation, validation, and versioning. This process aims
to support linguists, terminologists, marketers, technical writers,
and others who require a systematic approach to neologism creation.
This document is not prescriptive about what constitutes a "good"
or "valid" new word, but rather focuses on the process to document
and version words once they have been created.
2. Terminology
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].
Additionally, the following terms are used throughout this document:
Neologism - A newly coined word or expression.
Morpheme - The smallest meaningful unit in a language.
Etymology - The study of the origin of words and their historical
development.
Semantic Field - A set of words related in meaning.
Innovention Record (IR) - The formal documentation of a newly
created word according to this
specification.
3. The Innovention Process
The Innovention process consists of four distinct phases:
1. Word Creation Phase - The actual creation of the neologism
2. Documentation Phase - Recording the word's properties and metadata
3. Validation Phase - Testing the word for usability and acceptance
4. Registration Phase - Publishing the word with its version
Each phase is described in detail in the following sections.
3.1. Word Creation Phase
The Word Creation Phase encompasses the actual conception of the new
word. While the creative process itself is outside the scope of this
specification, creators SHOULD consider the following approaches:
a) Compounding - Combining existing words
Example: web + log = weblog (later shortened to "blog")
b) Blending - Merging parts of multiple words
Example: breakfast + lunch = brunch
c) Derivation - Adding affixes to existing words
Example: friend + -ly = friendly
d) Acronyms - Forming a word from initial letters
Example: Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus = SCUBA
e) Backformation - Creating a new root word from an existing word
Example: edit (derived from editor)
f) Onomatopoeia - Words that imitate sounds
Example: buzz, splash, hiccup
g) Borrowing - Adapting words from other languages
Example: kindergarten (from German)
h) Eponyms - Words derived from proper names
Example: sandwich (from the Earl of Sandwich)
i) Arbitrary coinage - Creating entirely new word forms
Example: kodak, googol
The creator MUST document the method used for creation as part of
the Documentation Phase.
3.2. Documentation Phase
Each neologism created through the Innovention process MUST be
documented using an Innovention Record (IR). The IR serves as the
authoritative reference for the word and includes the following
required and optional fields:
Required Fields:
a) Word - The neologism itself (case-sensitive)
b) Definition - Clear explanation of the word's meaning
c) Creation Method - The approach used from Section 3.1
d) Etymology - Description of the word's components and origin
e) Word Class - Noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc.
f) Creator - Individual or entity responsible for the word
g) Creation Date - Date of initial creation (YYYY-MM-DD)
h) Version - Version string following the syntax in Section 4
Optional Fields:
i) Pronunciation - IPA (International Phonetic Alphabet) notation
j) Usage Examples - Sample sentences demonstrating proper usage
k) Semantic Field - The category or domain of the word
l) Related Terms - Other words in the same semantic field
m) Notes - Additional information or context
n) Variants - Alternative spellings or forms
A complete Innovention Record template is provided in Section 5.
3.3. Validation Phase
Before a neologism can be considered complete, it SHOULD undergo
validation to assess its usability and potential for adoption.
Validation includes:
a) Pronunciation Testing
- The word SHOULD be pronounceable by target language speakers
- Multiple speakers SHOULD attempt to pronounce the word without
seeing it in written form
b) Comprehension Testing
- Test subjects SHOULD be able to grasp the meaning from context
- Test usage in sample sentences with different audiences
c) Distinctiveness Check
- Verify the word doesn't already exist with another meaning
- Check for unintended meanings in other languages
- Verify the word doesn't infringe on existing trademarks
d) Acceptability Testing
- Gauge reactions to the word from potential users
- Test for negative associations or connotations
Results of validation testing SHOULD be summarized in the Notes
field of the Innovention Record.
3.4. Registration Phase
Following successful validation, the neologism SHOULD be registered
according to the following process:
a) Assignment of a unique identifier for the word
b) Publication of the complete Innovention Record
c) Initial versioning as described in Section 4
Registration MAY involve submission to:
- Organizational lexicons or glossaries
- Industry-specific terminology databases
- Public neologism registries
- Linguistic research databases
The specific registration venue is outside the scope of this
specification, but the registration location SHOULD be noted in
the Innovention Record.
4. Word Versioning Syntax
Each neologism created through the Innovention process MUST include
a version identifier that follows the syntax defined in this section.
4.1. Version String Format
The version string MUST follow this format:
MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH-VARIANT
Where:
MAJOR - Incremented for definition changes that alter the
fundamental meaning of the word
MINOR - Incremented for extensions to the definition that preserve
backward compatibility with existing usage
PATCH - Incremented for clarifications or corrections that don't
change the meaning
VARIANT - An optional alphabetic tag indicating a specific form or
dialect variant
Examples:
1.0.0 - Initial release of a word
1.1.0 - Minor addition to definition
2.0.0 - Significant meaning change
1.0.1 - Definition clarification
1.0.0-UK - UK English variant
1.0.0-tech - Technical jargon variant
4.2. Version Incrementation Rules
Version components MUST be incremented according to these rules:
a) MAJOR version increments:
- When the primary meaning of the word changes
- When the word class changes (e.g., noun to verb)
- When pronunciation guidance fundamentally changes
b) MINOR version increments:
- When new meanings are added that don't contradict existing ones
- When usage expands to new domains
- When new forms are added (plural, tense, etc.)
c) PATCH version increments:
- When clarifying existing definitions
- When adding usage examples
- When correcting typographical errors
- When updating metadata that doesn't affect meaning
d) VARIANT additions:
- When creating dialectal variants
- When creating domain-specific variants
- When creating register-specific variants (formal, slang, etc.)
When a MAJOR version is incremented, MINOR and PATCH MUST be reset
to zero. When a MINOR version is incremented, PATCH MUST be reset
to zero.
5. Innovention Record Format
The official Innovention Record MUST be formatted as follows:
INNOVENTION RECORD
Word: [The neologism] Version: [MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH-VARIANT] Word Class: [Noun/Verb/Adjective/etc.] Definition: [Clear explanation of meaning]
Creation Method: [Method from Section 3.1] Etymology: [Description of components and origin] Creator: [Individual or entity] Creation Date: [YYYY-MM-DD]
Pronunciation: [IPA notation] (Optional) Usage Examples: (Optional)
- [Example 1]
- [Example 2]
- [Example 3]
Semantic Field: [Category/Domain] (Optional) Related Terms: [List of related words] (Optional) Variants: [Alternative forms] (Optional)
Notes: [Additional information] (Optional)
Version History:
- [Version] ([Date]): [Change description]
The Innovention Record SHOULD be maintained in a plain text format
for maximum compatibility, although it MAY also be stored in
structured data formats such as JSON, XML, or YAML.
6. Backwards Compatibility
When updating a word through version increments, backward
compatibility SHOULD be maintained whenever possible. This means:
a) Earlier definitions SHOULD remain valid unless explicitly
deprecated in a MAJOR version change
b) New meanings SHOULD be extensions rather than contradictions
of existing meanings when possible
c) Version history MUST be maintained to track changes
If backward compatibility cannot be maintained, a MAJOR version
increment is REQUIRED.
7. Internationalization Considerations
The Innovention process SHOULD consider the following international
aspects:
a) Unintended meanings in other languages SHOULD be identified
during the Validation Phase
b) For words intended for international use, pronunciation guides
SHOULD include variations for major language groups
c) Character set limitations SHOULD be considered for words that
will be used in multiple writing systems
d) Cultural sensitivity checks SHOULD be performed to avoid
offensive terms across cultures
8. Security Considerations
While this specification primarily addresses linguistic concerns,
several security considerations should be noted:
a) Trademark and intellectual property conflicts may arise from
newly coined words
b) Homographs or near-homographs of existing terms may lead to
confusion in critical contexts
c) Malicious actors could attempt to introduce confusing terms
in security-sensitive domains
d) Organizations implementing the Innovention process SHOULD
establish appropriate controls for words used in sensitive
contexts
9. References
[RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997.
10. Author's Address
[Author Name]
[Author Organization]
[Author Email]
Thank you for submitting this process specification RFC.
I think this is a great start. The novel and structured process solution has merit and is likely warranted. I firmly believe the committee should consider expediting the consideration of considering this at this year’s Plenum, with the aim to be considered for initial considerations in pre-committee within the following fortyear.
One nit, and possibly a premature optimization on my end, but given there is no complimentary step for removal of words, my fear is that we might possibly go from the dozens of human words we have today to perhaps hundreds, which could be overwhelming, with no recourse. Considerations?