Truthiness of Memes

There seems to be some disagreement about who coined the word ‘truthiness.’ That is, something that sounds like it should be true even if it isn’t. Of course, Stephen Colbert deserves full credit for this word that so perfectly describes what passes for news’ analysis these days, regardless of any prior claim because he did one thing with ‘truthiness’ that no one had done before. He gave it a context.
Anyone can put a prefix or a suffix on a noun and call it a word, publish it a couple of times, even as successfully as getting it in the dictionary. But that doesn’t mean a real word has been created. Unlike slang, these Frankenstein words never enter the vocabulary in any meaningful way.
Consider the pseudo-word coined in the 1930's, ‘supercilious.’ This word appears in the dictionary with a definition, has been used in several published works, and its meaning can possibly be wrung out if it is used in a sentence. However, it isn’t really a word because it has no context. Super= above. Cilius=eyebrows. But so what? It remains a fraternity word game.
On a related note: meme. That little gem was scientist Richard Dawkins’ aside while speculating that ideas might replicate in the same way genes do. He admits it was just idle speculation, but unfortunately his apostles took it as some great insight and have spent endless hours in not-short-of religious arguments for memes’ existence. Harmless enough, I thought, until I found a book “Breaking the Spell” which stated it would examine religion with a scientific eye, then quickly defined religion as an evolving meme “Breaking the Spell” uses the truthiness of memes in place of logic.
I doubt Dawkins would approve of such muddy thinking, but meme no longer belongs to him. Meme has taken on a life of its own. It memed, one might say. It has a context even though what it represents might be as nonsensical as a unicorn.

Nancy Sherer