There are ethologists, ethnologists, entomologists, and etiologists; how about an experiment of calling them animalwaysmasters, peoplesplitwises, bug-lords and causescounters… oh, wait, now I understand why we use the Greek terms.
I wonder if it is just me that cannot think of the subject without wanting to make up a few new ones? Also, just me that curses after checking those above seem to be of Greek origin, while Latin is the language you tend to pick up more bits of. Not that it stops me from calling myself an erisiologist, now that I’ve come to think of it; possibly an erisiosophist, even. (Also woo no Google hits first po— wait, first hit! First hit on the Internets with “erisiologist”! Woo, do I win something now?*)
Or an erisiarch — would that be “chief Erisian”, as a heresiarch is the “chief heretic”?
Erisiarch. I kind of have to say I like the sound of that. Steal the word if you need it. Or else I guess I have to start a pseudoscientific crank sect now that I got a fancy Classical word for myself. (“My qualifications, you fool? I am the Chief Research Erisiarch Officer General of the Institute for Universal Erisiology… of Quantum Einstein!”)
Wait; wait; I forget the proper Discordian approach. The proper title should use the Latin word and the Greek suffix, for the maximum popping of Classicist forehead veins, something like this: a Discordiarch! Of which the plurals are a discodyarch and a discortriarch.
* * *
*, First hits on the Internets and the like : No, you win nothing. Also, first, apologies for the outburst. Second, I throw this out without Googling about it: it seems there must be a shortest string of letters, probably several, that have no Google hits. “Erisiologist” gives, until today, the upper limit of 12; how short is the shortest?
Are there observations on the evolution of the density by length of the letter combinations (“words”) that give Google hits?
Will there be a 12-Apocalypse sooner or later, and because of my current reckless, feckless hubris sooner rather than later, when all possible 12-letter strings return a hit or more? (December 2012 — is that what it’s all about?)
What about adding numbers and the like to the mix? Even if the absolute number of combinations is too big to observe, surely one can take samples, and surely there must have been a person of free time and processor time that has looked into this?
And are there cybersquatters that have take a hold of the, say, the seven-block already, posting them somewhere, sure that sooner or later there will be searching for some of them?
And why am I asking these questions when I should be googling for answers? Or am I merely afraid of perturbing what I wish to observe by the act of my observation?