GD Usernames and Euphemism: A Morphosemantic Analysis

Gamedesire (GD), a free online gaming website, is a rich resource for language research on Computer-Mediated Communication (CMC). GD raises a number of linguistic inquiries on written English. This paper analyzes the morphosemantic mechanisms of forming euphemistic GD usernames. A dataset of two hundred usernames has randomly been selected and tested against Warren’s (1992) model. The study demonstrates that a plethora of GD usernames carry dysphemistic connotations that are denotatively euphemized with linguistic and paralinguistic mechanisms, including word formation, orthographic modification, borrowing and semantic innovation. Some of the dataset usernames could not be subsumed under the selected model, necessitating the addition of new devices and the development of a new rendition of the model. The study reveals that GD users employ several processes for creating their usernames, which are characterized by grammatical, lexical, phonological, graphological, and semantic deviations from language norms.



The term blends has been unduly explained and exemplified. The scholarly explication and implementation of this term is still undeveloped. Ham (2001) concedes that euphemistic examples of blends are fairly rare and remain to be found and unjustifiably suggests that the category of blend be removed from the model until evidence of its validity is produced or be listed under phonemic replacement. Both the concession and the suggestion are debatable.


No difference is made clear between acronyms and abbreviations therein. An acronym is a pronounceable word (read like a normal word) formed from the initial letters of two or more words as in laser (see Haspelmath & Sims, 2010;Bauer, 2003), whereas an abbreviation is a combination of two or more initial letters read alphabetically and standing for a full form as in DJ or NHS. Abbreviation is referred to as alphabetism (see Haspelmath & Sims, 2010) and is said to fall into initialism, acronym and clipping (see McArthur, 2008). Acronym is subsumed by Warren (1992) under word-formation; abbreviation under phonemic modification.
These problematic issues necessitate removing the existing limitations and reconsidering the previous models. It is also assumed that a number of the collected Gamedesire usernames may not be subsumed under any of the categories developed by Warren and Ham. Therefore, a new rendition of the model is needed to include these usernames. To recap then: Warren (1992) and Ham (2001Ham ( , 2005 introduced their insights into the linguistics of euphemism in a literary world. This paper reexamines these insights with application to logins in a virtual GD world.

Research Objectives
The main objectives of this article are  to conduct a morphosemantic analysis of the mechanisms language users employ to create their usernames (logins) on the URL http://www.gamedesire.com; and  to identify their intended dysphemistic referents. This analysis was conducted by investigating a dataset of 200 usernames collected randomly from the GD website.

Research Questions
To achieve these objectives, the study raises the following questions:  Which linguistic mechanisms do users employ in forming their euphemistic usernames on the Gamedesire website?
 Which mechanisms register higher frequency than others?
 Do the usernames maintain their lexical meanings or do they take on new sexual connotations?

Gamedesire (GD): A Global Village
Gamedesire is a meeting website for thousands of people where they log in everyday to play and converse with one another. Before establishing a Gamedesire account, users must abide by the rules of the Gamedesire etiquette, the most important of which are nicknaming and chatting. The former is the point of departure there and here, concerning which a nickname should not be racially, religiously, historically or sexually offensive to others and should not also be vulgar. Forbidden also are the shortcuts of swears and the misleading usernames (see http://www.gamedesire.com/dd-10,n-3.html) (Note 1). If users do not follow the rules, their access to the website will be banned. Necessity being the mother of invention, they tend to employ evasive ways to break the rules and sign up with whatever usernames they fancy. Their most helpful mechanism in doing so is euphemism. Alternatives, though denotatively euphemistic, carry dysphemistic connotations. In this way, the censorship is rendered futile and users protect their usernames from banning and maintain access to the GD website. Being relatively impermanent informal names, usernames give the users a linguistic licence in breaking the rules (de Clerk & Bosch, 1997). Usernames also characterize their bearers in some respect, such as sex, location and orientation.
The discipline under which the study of usernames falls is known as onomastics. Lapierre (2000) believes that onomastic studies have emerged as a true discipline of convergence, drawing on and bringing together the methodologies of several disciplines, mostly in social sciences and humanities. A salient focus of onomastics as an autonomous discipline is (user)names. Usernames are universal (Liao, 2006). de Klerk and Bosch (1997) point out that usernames as optional and transient terms of address and reference can provide insights into social relationships, culture and language (cited in Gladkova, 2002). The choice between usernames is context-based and the motivation for it is either euphemistic (substituting an inoffensive word for an offensive one) or evasive (replacing an impermissible username with a permissible one). According to Allan and Burridge (2006), styles of naming are affected by the speaker's attitude and by the perceived role and status, within the context of talk exchange, of the speaker and the person addressed or named. Names can be descriptive, picking up on a salient characteristic perceived in, wanted for, or (sometimes ironically) imputed to the referent. Just so are usernames.

Euphemism
A language without euphemisms would be a defective instrument of communication (Burchfield, 1985).
He who looks for offence will find it everywhere. He who concerns himself with euphemism, that mode of avoiding offence, will find it everywhere too (Enright, 1985). Burchfield (1985) mentions that the word euphemism was first recorded in English in Thomas Blount's Glossographia (1665). The universal prevalence of euphemism as a principle of language is due to a belief in the mystic power of words to work their own fulfilment, as one of the laws of destiny (Friend, 1881). Diebold (1961) regards euphemism as a concept which does not lend itself to rigorous definition. However, the following lines provide some definitions of euphemism. Euphemism is defined by Diebold (1961) as 'an expression (or a set of expressions) demanding palliation'; by Webster's Third New International Dictionary (1961) as 'a polite, tactful, or less explicit term used to avoid the direct naming of an unpleasant, painful, or frightening reality' and by the Concise Oxford Dictionary (1982) as 'substitution of mild or vague or roundabout expression for harsh or blunt or direct one' (cited in Burchfield, 1985); by Jones (1980) as 'a figure of speech by which a harsh or unpleasant fact is given a milder or more gentle expression or is expressed in a more roundabout way' (quoted in McKenzie, 1992); and by Fan (2006) as 'roundabout expressions, substituting indirect, vague, pleasant and mild words for more explicit and offensive ones, with the purpose of avoiding taboos, showing elegance or avoiding hurting other people's feelings.' Authors in the field hold different views on whether the use of euphemism is positive or negative as summed up below:  The use of euphemism is common in everyday life, as in 'sleep' for 'dying'; 'covers one's feet' for 'urinating'; 'to know' for 'coition'; and 'the way of women' for 'menstruation'. These euphemisms are straightforward and representative of little difficulty either to the ancients or to contemporary readers (Ford, 1968).
 Euphemism is the British linguistic vice (Lancastrians are the exception; just as hyperbole is the American; coarse slang the Australian; blarney the Irish; pedantry the Indian; and a whining pronunciation the South African (Howard, 1984).
 Words themselves are euphemisms for what they represent and can hurt you in diverse ways-by telling the truth, by telling less than the truth, or by telling more than the truth. The shift of 'genuine' euphemism into the public sphere, political, military, commercial, and social, can do much more harm than it ever did in the largely private realms of sex, bowel movements, menstruation, money, sickness, and natural death (Enright, 1985).
 Invention being the mother of necessity, the need for euphemism arose and nowhere could this need have been greater, or more evident, than in the realm of sex. Removal of euphemism from the realm of discourse about sex leaves one with two undesired possibilities: a) to speak about it clinically and b) to speak not so much plainly as profanely (Epstein, 1985).
 Euphemistic language has traditionally been scorned as a fearful evasion of the truth, of open, frank statements of 'reality'. There are two problems with euphemism: a) to categorize euphemism as a deviation from a norm is to place it in a hierarchy that is implicitly moral. Euphemism is furtive, fearful, indirect, circumambient, imprecise, and non-concise. The other problem is that it is not always easy to identify the 'normal' word from which the euphemism is supposed to be deviating (Robinson, 1991) (Note 2).
 Whether euphemism functions better as expletives often depends on a speaker's illocutionary situation and is probably a matter of taste (Adams, 1999).
such as sex without upsetting other people. The function of euphemism is to protect the sender/receiver from possible effrontery and offence (Ham, 2005).
 Some experiences are too intimate and vulnerable to be discussed without linguistic safeguards; one of these is death. People tend to use euphemism as a tool of mentioning the unmentionables (Crespo-Fernández, 2006).
Euphemism prevails the arena of sex. In the vast history of humanity, sex was publicly unspeakable. Nowadays it has become one of the much-tackled topics everywhere on radio, television, dish satellite, the Internet and at schools and universities. The Internet changed social perceptions of sex, by making it more accessible, more exchangeable and more visible. The emergence of computer-mediated communication modes, chatrooms in particular, have drastically changed attitudes towards sex. "The subject of sex, being a major concern in human life and one that is likely to elicit embarrassment, is a potent source of euphemism for people of most ages and walks of life" (Ham, 2001, p. 11). Epstein (1985) contends that sex may be spoken of tenderly or toughly, lyrically or lasciviously, beautifully or brutally, and in all these various ways by the same person on the same day. Santaemilia (2005) admits that the language employed to denote sex is worthy of observation and research. Crespo-Fernández (2015) approaches sex from a cognitive linguistic perspective by analyzing two antithetical terms of verbal mitigation and offence: euphemism and dysphemism.

Politeness
The notion of politeness has been into much interest since its development by Brown and Levinson (1978;1987). Holmes (1995) defines it as 'an actively expressing positive concern for others, as well as non-imposing distancing behaviour'-a definition describing politeness as showing concern for 'facework'. He suggests that politeness can be expressed verbally and non-verbally. Meier (2005) views politeness as appropriateness, which leads to the rejection of equating politeness with specific speech acts, lexical items, or syntactic constructions. Escandell-vidal (1996) describes politeness as indirectness and indirectness as implicitness. The relation between politeness and indirectness is considered from two different points of view: a) the reason for being indirect is to be polite and b) the best way to be polite is to be indirect. Leech (1983) characterizes politeness as relative and absolute. Relative politeness refers to the politeness of an act relative to a particular context, whereas absolute politeness refers to the politeness associated with acts independent of context (cited in Culpeper, 1996). Precisely, politeness is a mere idiolect, i.e., people have their own ways of appearing polite. Politeness can be considered as relative as beauty and what counts as polite varies between individuals and communities. The point is what is regarded as polite yesterday might not be polite today and what is considered polite today might not be polite tomorrow. As Allan and Burridge (2006) put it, politeness is wedded to context, place and time.

Face
From the preceding standpoints, it can be deduced that the concept of face is intrinsic to politeness theory. Hatim (1997) views politeness as centering on the notion of face, i.e., the attempt to establish, maintain, and save face in interaction with others. Goffman (1967) conceptualizes face as a construct with universal applicability and defines it as 'the positive social value a person effectively claims for himself by the line others assume he has taken during a particular contact' (cited in Kadt, 1998). Allan and Burridge (2006) perceive social interaction as generally oriented towards maintaining (saving) face, and just as we look after our own face (self-respect), we are expected to be considerate of, and look after, the face-wants of others. They distinguish between 'positive face' (a person's desire to be liked and valued) and 'negative face' (a person's desire to act freely and without hindrance). Holmes (1995) draws the same distinction between a negative face (the need not to be imposed upon) and a positive face (the need to be liked and admired). Then face is a self-image that can be saved or threatened in different ways. Briefly, one motivation behind the use of euphemism is to sound polite and save one's own face as well as the faces of others.

Taboo
Hayakawa (1965) states that there seem to be certain 'unmentionables' in everyday language. These are verbal taboos which Allan and Burridge (2006) regard as proscriptions of behaviour that affect everyday life. Calvo (2005) extends the term taboo to all those words or sets of words referring to objects, concepts or actions that a given society considers to be individually or collectively subject to proscription. Allan and Burridge (2006) state that (im)politeness is examined in its interaction with orthophemism (straight talk), euphemism (sweet talk), and dysphemism (offensive talk). Dysphemism is technically defined as 'a word or phrase with connotations that are offensive either about the denotatum or people addressed or overhearing the utterance', whereas orthophemism and euphemism are defined as 'words or phrases used as an alternative to a dispreferred expression which can be dubbed tabooed expression.' Their so-called X-phemisms (the union of set of orthophemisms, euphemisms, and dysphemis Table 1. C Table 1 sh euphemist The X-phe

Literatu
Fan ( hich euphemis m a new one), sting words to words), onoma ring the form an offensive w fensive one th another phone g parts of word place of the of mbination, as ), implication ( n affinity betw g co-occurrenc al meaning to ntextual refere naming (Ham Vol. 9,No. 5; ge.

Dataset
Gamedesire (GD) provides a sign-up page so that interested visitors can register by creating a login through the URL http://www.gamedesire.com/dd-1,n-2.html. As a result of the registration, they become entitled to send and receive messages, chat in multinational lobbies, and play at public or private tables. A randomly selected, but representative, sample of 200 euphemized usernames was collected and then tested against Warren's (1992) model as modified by Ham (2001;. By 'representative', it is meant that an example can be typical of a great many of other similar examples, since the purpose is not to list but to exemplify. The usernames were collected from their respective profiles. Clickable URLs of the usernames so selected can be navigated by adding a username (e.g., handjob) to the main URL http://www.gamedesire.com and then pressing the 'Ctrl' button to be directly taken to the player's profile (e.g., http://www.gamedesire.com/player/handjob) if connected to the Internet. During the phase of data collection, some limitations occurred: a) regular members could sign in as guests and, therefore, it was not possible for other members to identify them; b) it was sometimes difficult to distinguish between the meaning intended by the addresser (what 'I' meant) and that received by the addressee (what 'you' got); c) the majority of the profiles did not provide any personal details and could be created and deleted on the same day; d) some usernames might be ambiguous because they could be interpreted in different ways, at least one of which is the case; e) a request was made to the website administrator to provide a list of usernames, but it was denied. The sample of usernames collected for analysis is provided in Table 2. These usernames are investigated in the next section and classified into a fitting category as covered by Warren (1992) and Ham (2001Ham ( , 2005. Usernames not fitting into any of the categories necessitated creating new ones. All categories are combined in a new version of the model (See Appendix 1).  Warren's (1992) and Ham's (2001Ham's ( , 2005  Grammatically, the compound euphemisms above constitute compound noun phrases made up of two words: a noun or an adjective functioning as a pre-modifier of another noun and combined together in a solid shape of one word. Phonologically, compounds occur in two forms: (a) word stress with the pattern "/-×" (primary-tertiary) and compound stress with the reversed pattern "×-/" (tertiary-primary). The compound euphemisms 'handshake', 'chachas', 'meatballs', and 'nosebleed' belong to the former type; the rest to the latter. Compounds of the former type transfer us from the lexical sphere to the sexual whereby 'handshake', 'chachas', 'meatballs', and 'nosebleed' connote 'masturbation', 'breasts', and 'menstruation', respectively. Compounds as such show the users as more highly productive in dressing lexical items with new connotative senses that are semantically opaque. These compounds are exocentric since the whole meaning of the compound cannot be figured out from the meanings of its parts. The word derivation is used here as a process of affixation (see Bauer, 2003;Matthews, 1991), not as borrowing in Warren's or Ham's sense. Gamedesire users exceed the normal resources of the English language, by adding a nominal bound-morphemic suffix, e.g., "-er" (doer) and "-ing" (doing), to certain existing lexical entries with familiar meanings to defamiliarize them for euphemistic purposes. Such derivatives challenge the norms of English derivational morphology by changing the form of the base. Items such as "bitch", "butt", and "ass" are lexically entered as nouns but are treated here by means of conversion as verbs "to bitch", "to butt", and "to ass". These are typical examples of lexical deviation from the linguistic norm. These are euphemistic blends formed by clipping part of one word or two and then combining the clipped parts together in single words referred to as portmanteau words (see Haspelmath, 2002;Bauer, 2003;Crystal, 2003Crystal, , 2008. Blending serves here as a very rich source of new words pragmatized online but not yet lexicalized. Out of these blends, only "pedophile" has a standard lexical entry; "crunk" (cruel + drunk) bears an orthographic affinity to "crunk" (a type of rap music). The rest are nonce words serving gap-filling purposes on particular occasions and functioning as midway euphemisms between two distinct words, one or both of which are dysphemistic. word formed successively from the initial letters of the constituent words. Full-form dysphemisms are ineffable and it is ineffability that forces the users not to use expansions but to resort to initialisms instead because of spatial and technical constraints. Space allowed for a sign-up is limited by the login screen and an offensive username causes face-threatening acts in chatrooms. Therefore, the need for acronymy arises. As a euphemism-forming mechanism, acronymy becomes widespread through frequent use online. Scholars (see Crystal, 2003Crystal, , 2008McArthur, 2008) consider abbreviation an umbrella term including acronymy, initialism (alphabetism (Haspelmath, 2002)), and clipping (truncation (Plag, 2003)). Crystal (2008) establishes that abbreviation is a process of distinguishing many ways in which words can be shortened: initialisms or alphabetisms, acronyms, clippings, and blends. Gamedesire users are prolific coiners of novel abbreviations, shortening words whose expansion is offensive into inoffensive abbreviated forms. Such forms are gradually popularized with the advance of online technology and become a fast-disseminating trend on the website. The website etiquette creates a great demand for shorter, more compatible forms which keep avid seekers of sex on the safe side. At the height of sexual arousal during the intercourse, orgasm or excitement is paraverbally or nonverbally expressed. Sex partners transmit their intense sexual pleasure through paraverbal means as in the tone, pitch or pace of wailing, moaning, groaning and bonking or nonverbal means through physical reactions as a vibration, a tremble, or a thrill. Gamedesire users log in with onomatopoeically euphemistic usernames evocative of the sounds produced during sexual intercourse. Rhyming slang usually involves a two-word phrase whose last word rhymes with the target word and the meaning of the whole phrase is unlikely to have any relation to the target word (Wherrett, 2009 slang usernames vary, however, from three-to two-to one-word phrases (nominal and prepositional) used so as not to be comprehended by the outsiders. Most of the usernames are minimal pairs whose members share all sounds but one (see Crystal, 2008), as in 'sex/six', 'whore/four', 'shit/Kitt', and 'nipple/ripple'. The rest hold fully or loosely consonantal or assonantal affinities. Both back slang and rhyming slang amount to what Halliday (1978) terms 'antilanguages'. They give rise to a new register of English, a major threat of overlexicalization to standard English. Phonemic replacement is a process in which Gamedesire users replace a phoneme in a word with another phoneme that is alliteratively, consonantally, or assonantally similar, but not identical, to it. There is what Short (1996) terms "loose alliteration" between "zex" and "sex" which are phonetically distinguished by the z-s contrast: alveolar, fricative, and voiced in contradistinction to alveolar, fricative, and voiceless, respectively. Sharing all distinctive articulatory features except one makes them loosely alliterative. Similarly speaking, there is loose consonance between "azz" and "ass" and loose assonance between "i" in "6y" and "e" in "sexy": short, high and front against short, mid and front, respectively. These usernames, however, are instances of phonemic and orthographic deviations. No smart, knowledgeable, and experienced speaker of English has difficulty putting all intended mispronunciations and misspellings in their correct forms. Deletion is used here as a general term applicable to sounds as well as to words. The deletion of sounds is referred to as elision (sounds are elided); deletion of words as ellipsis (words are ellipted). The nicks "XTC" and "mng" are examples of elision; the rest of ellipsis. The weak vowel "ə" in "ecstasy" is typical of syncopic elision; "n" in "mng" of aphetic and apocopic elisions. Crystal (2003; includes ellipsis in the domain of grammar and elision in that of phonetics and phonology. Though intended as evasive or ambiguous, usernames cause great proliferation of euphemisms marked by deletions to palliate what could not be named directly.  Enright (1985) mentions that an element of euphemization resides in the borrowing of foreign words and phrases whereby what is referred to is so rare among us that we have to import from other languages to describe it. The element is borrowing (see Crystal, 2003Crystal, , 2008. Loanwords are borrowings imported from one language to be used in another by people who do not speak the 'exporting' language. The loaned usernames sayha and doody are also instances of transliteration, whereby the alphabetical letters of Arabic are rendered into those of English. Gamedesire users employ this method in creating a username into one language using the alphabet of another.  Vol. 9, No. 5; This mechanism involves the use of a general username in a context where a patent euphemistic meaning is sent by the addresser, but a latent sexual interpretation is received by the addressee. This act of reception requires the general username to be "particularized" and assigned a specific sexual sense. "Satisfaction", e.g., is a generalized term for the gratification acquired when a need is fulfilled, but is particularized for the orgasm attained at the end of sexual intercourse. The username "getitup" includes the pronoun "it" which refers generally to anything that is gotten up, but particularly to penile or clitoral erection. This semantic mechanism comprises usernames whose sexual connotations are not directly communicated but are implied by the addresser and inferred by the addressee. Technically speaking, those usernames in the first and third columns are implicitly communicated and thus are termed "implicatures" (Crystal, 2008), whereas those in the second and fourth columns are explicitly conveyed and thus are termed "explicatures" (Crystal, 2008). Warren (1992) explains "implication" as the invariable concomitance between the contextual and conventional referents, which generates an antecedent-consequent relationship between them, i.e., if X then Y. To "have sex" implies sleeping, getting laid and willingly and loosely touching somebody in a passionate and intimate way to have a pleasurable thrill from front or from behind. Metaphor draws comparison between two referents: the "conventional" and the "contextual" in Warren's terms (1992), "tenor" and "vehicle" in Leech's terms (1969). Both referents have some likeness in common (ground of comparison) or, as Warren (1992) puts it, "some property of the conventional referent is also a property of the contextual referent". That is the case when vaginas are likened to doors and gates (both can be opened and penetrated); testicles and breasts to balls and globes (both have circular or oval shapes); and a sex partner to a wild animal (both eat up ravenously). The usernames above are metaphorized in such a way to express the user's euphemistic attitude towards the referent and bring to our knowledge some newly discovered similitude. Metonymy establishes some association between two referents termed by Warren (1992) co-occurrence relation between the conventional and contextual referents. Like metaphorical euphemisms, metonymic ones transfer us from the dysphemistic domain to the euphemistic through an affinity relation between the substituted and the substituted-for in the former trope or through a contiguous relation in the latter. The metonymic euphemisms above relate the conventional and contextual senses in the following ways: (a) general-for-specific: he and/or she for a bisexual partner sexually oriented towards both sexes, (b) whole-for-part: he (an entire male organism) for penis (a male organ), (c) cause-for-effect: cumcum (i.e., come) for orgasm; (d) location-for-located: rear for ass, and (e) unnamed-for-named: it for sex and thing for penis or pussy. Warren's "reversal" (1992) is reminiscent of Ford's (1968) and Leech's (1969) "irony", a device of euphemism whereby an offensive word is expressed with a mild one. It is a way of saying something literally and meaning its opposite figuratively. However incapable of entering the cranium of the coiners to read their intentions, we do not normally tend to believe the conventional sense, because bearers of usernames intend the opposite of what they write and none of them tends to underestimate his or her physical constitution: ugly and bad-looking for gorgeous; cold, freezy, chilly, and icicle for hot. Litotes is an understatement in which an affirmative meaning is expressed by negating its opposite. The negative meaning is brought home to us either through the negative particle not or through a negative prefix such as inand un-. In litotic euphemisms, Gamedesire users tend to downgrade (Warren's term) a particular sexual sense.
Though not a meaning-changing tool, understatement or litotes can be combined with a meaning-changing one, i.e., irony since the user writes something but means its opposite. Therefore, it is admitted that litotic instances can be classed as ironical. The interpreter may not accept it, though. Understatements suit the aim of euphemism since something "bad" is expressed by something "less bad". Leech (1969)  Contrary to litotes, hyperbole is an overstatement in which truth, as Leech (1969) puts it, is distorted by saying too much. In hyperbolic euphemisms, Gamedesire users tend to upgrade (Warren's term) their sexual excitement by extravagant exaggerations. Whereas litotic euphemisms are ironical, hyperbolic euphemisms are metaphorical. Most of the litotic and hyperbolic phrases are equivocal, since they can be assigned more than one interpretation. The motivation behind overstatements is to overestimate one's sexual status to grab birds of the same feather, i.e., players with the same interests. This is an onomastic mechanism that employs historical names designating sexual referents or develops new ones. Some of the Gamedesire users act as nomenclators assigning existing or new names to sexual designata. Casanova and Don Juan are notorious for their affairs with women and therefore are envisaged as womanizers or dysphemistically as fuckers. Julius Caesar and Red Sea whose conventional referents are respectively the Roman dictator and a body of water are contextually assigned new referents: penis and pussy, respectively. Perhaps the common link between Julius Caesar and the penis is showing powerful masculinity in action. The conventional fixed phrase Red Sea (water body) carries the stress pattern primary-tertiary, in which the lexeme Red assigns no colour to the Sea, whereas the contextual phrase redsea carries the stress pattern secondary-primary, in which the adjectival modifier red is used in an extended sense to describe the vaginal color from inside. The common link between the Red Sea and the vagina is that both share the color and are swimmable. CaptainHook is an invented name given to the male genital, i.e., the penis, due to formal resemblance. Warren (1992) and Ham (2001Ham ( , 2005  Neologism, also known as coinage, is regarded by Leech (1969) as lexical deviation, one of the most transparent ijel.ccsenet.org

Euphemistic Categories not Developed by
International Journal of English Linguistics Vol. 9, No. 5; devices in which Gamedesire users exceed the normal boundaries of language and invent new words which become in common usage despite the fact that these words have no entries in language dictionaries. These words are called 'nonce-formations' by Leech (1969) and 'nonce-words' by Hurford and Heasley (1983), being coined on spur of the moment. On a particular occasion or in a given context, Gamedesire users need to convey a sexual meaning but find no lexical entry in language dictionaries for that meaning. Hence, they tend to exploit a word-formation process such as affixation to establish the needed meaning.

Conversion
Username Connotation Username Connotation sexme have sex with me beerme get dunk and laid This is a zero-derivational word-formation tool whereby Gamdesire users shift a lexical unit from its normal word class to a new contextual one without adding affixes (see Crystal, 2008). Although there is no orthographic shift in sex (noun/verb) and beer (noun/verb), there is a shift in meaning. Sex and beer which are lexically entered as nouns are pragmatized on the website under study as verbs connoting sexual desire. A fully detailed discussion of these two instances comes in Section 8. This is a semiotic-signifying process in which Gamedesire users utilize iconic signs in place of offensive words to describe a dynamic object euphemistically. The use of nonverbal representations is caused by the ineffability cast upon the verbal alternatives. The users are prohibited by Gamedesire etiquette from expressing these in words. Therefore, they resort to icons to communicate the incommunicable. The ideographs in the left columns are iconic because their shapes picture their meanings. The numerals 3, 6 and 9 which arbitrarily give no clue to their meanings are used in a creatively iconical way to convey an analogy between their shapes and the shape of the human body: circle for head, tail for leg and brackets for buttocks. A worldwide iconic example is 69 for reciprocal oral sex between engaged partners (Note 4). 'reduplication' is a word-formation process whereby the whole or part of the base is copied many times and attached to the base (see Katamba, 1993;Haspelmath, 2002). Bauer (2003) assigns reduplication two meanings: a) the formation of new affixes by repeating some part of the base (possibly the whole base) and b) the formation of new words using affixes created in this manner. The part which has been repeated to make the reduplicated word is called 'reduplicant'. As shown above, there can be reduplication of a full word (tautonym, as in peepee) or of part of the word with alternation or omission of an initial or medial sound (as in DillyWilly). For terminological simplicity, the biological term cloning has been imported in substitution for the complicated process of adding prefixes such as re-, tri-, quadru-, quinqu-, and so forth, to plication to show how many times a part or a whole has been copied. Back-formation is 'an abnormal type of word-formation where a shorter word is derived by deleting an imagined affix from a longer form already present in the language' (Crystal, 2008). Gamedesire users create usernames in this limited way by back-forming verbs from nouns removing an actual or supposed affix from existing words, as in nake from naked, lech from lechery and liaise from liaison. Of these only nake has no dictionary meaning. . Derivation (Der), Neologism (Neo), Conversion (Con), and Back-formation (Baf) are assigned less than 20%. The variance between the highest and the lowest categories shows a priority given by GD users to some categories over the others. Based on the previous sample analysis, a number of findings can be enumerated. The analysis shows that the users of http://www.gamedesire.com make frequent use of many euphemisms. In doing so, they enrich the 'chatty' language, save the face from social and moral threats, ensure continuity on the website, and guard against any possible bans from the website administrators. This is achieved through the use of a wide range of linguistic and rhetorical devices, most of which are highlighted in Warren's (1992) model, but some of which had to be furnished in a newer rendition of the model proposed at the end of this article (see Appendix 1). Modification was a necessity to include many examples not fitting into the categories provided by Warren (1992) and Ham (2001Ham ( , 2005. These new categories are considered an addition, not a deficiency as Ham (2001) claims. They are not inferior to, but are as important as, the old categories. On this view Halliday (1978) comments that there is no reason to say one way is better than another; but it is important to find out how the speakers of a particular language in fact set about creating new terms when faced with the necessity of doing so. However, as long as language is constantly changing and new coinages trickle into its dictionaries every day or are just pragmatized, the model is open for further development and what has been done is just a seminal work. It is also found that some of the model constituent items tend to overlap and readers can find a username simultaneously applicable to or subsumable under two or more categories. Take the cases of the usernames mng and XTC which can be listed under elision and abbreviation; sayha and doody under borrowing (derived/loanwords) and transliteration; wetnwild under deletion (elision), implication, and overstatement; frontdoor under compounding, implication, and metaphor; freezy and icicle under metaphor, irony, overstatement, and coinage; redsea under compounding, metaphor, and overstatement; and 69er under derivation and coinage. It is now obvious that certain euphemism-formation methods are not clear cut, being overlapped in the data analyzed, where different kinds of strategies can be used for face-saving purposes.

Results and Discussion
The analysis demonstrates that Gamedesire usernames tend to be euphemistic (face-saving) and dysphemistic (face-threatening) in different ways. The choice between the euphemistic and the dysphemistic seems entirely dependent upon an individual basis, not on the context. However futile it is to tear a word out of its context, contextualization is limited in the study. The ignoring of contexts in any act of interpretation is a weak practice, rather a vicious one (Hayakawa, 1965). Hayakawa's view is right, but some words, strictly usernames, cannot be contextualized with empty profiles of GD users and therefore are apt to multiple interpretations. Word meanings are not consistent and static (Ham, 2005) but dynamic and negotiable (Warren 1992 whole nickname or part thereof in lower-case, upper-case letters (as in lewd and OILED), or a mixture of both (as in SaTisFacTioN). Some GD nicknames in the sample of analysis illustrate that their bearers have a strong tendency to cut part of the nickname either initially, medially (as in uns for undies) or finally (as in nympho for nymphomaniac). Leech (1969) terms these initial, medial, and final omissions aphesis (aphaeresis or prosiopesis in Crystal, 2008), syncope, and apocope, respectively. Another catchy finding is the tendency to re-semanticize (Halliday's reinterpret) existing words. By 're-semanticizing', it is meant that GD users tend to construct and assign totally new meanings to certain lexical items with fixed sense entries in English dictionaries, as in sexme and beerme whereby the familiar lexical meaning of sex as a verb is to 'label as male or female' and that of beer as a noun is 'alcoholic liquor'. This process is dubbed 'conversion' (see Katamba, 1993;Bauer, 2003;Štekauer & Lieber, 2005), a word-formation (zero-derivational) strategy in which there is a change in the part of speech of a word without affixation marking the change. It is by act of colloquialism or slang that sex as a verb means 'to have sexual intercourse' and beer as a verb means 'to make drunk'; even both should be followed by the particle 'up'. Of these two, the verb sex has virtually passed a semantic extension whereby it takes on a further and newer meaning than the meaning it originally has in language dictionaries. Lexically, the word sex as a noun is polysemic, being used for 'intercourse' and 'gender', but as verb is monosemic, with one meaning 'to identify as male or female'. By analogy and conversion, the monosemic verb sex is semantically expanded, putting on the meaning of 'intercourse' taken on by its noun, i.e., 'to have sex'. Within GD speech community, this new meaning of the verb is now much more current than its old meaning. Examples as such show a clear distinction between the lexical meaning and the contextual meaning, which have not necessarily to coincide together. By the same token, lexical meaning and contextual meaning entail an ensuing distinction between a referent designated by dictionaries and a referent designated by particular contexts, as in wolfess designating an animal and a human.
There is a particular clue of connection between both referents: a rapacious female sex partner is metaphorically likened in her sexual act to a ravenous female wolf in its brutal attack on a prey.

Conclusion
That the explosion of the Internet is fundamentally transforming the world in which we live, work, govern, and communicate is a fact that has attracted much academic attention in the last decade. This is evidently clear from the proliferating chain of publications entitled ''The impact of the Internet on …'' (Crystal, 2001) A great number of GD usernames carry cryptic sexual connotations-by connotation one means the suggestion of an additional meaning apart from the dictionary meaning a username denotes. Language users use different styles of log-in on www.gamedesire.com marked by grammatical (change of word grammar), lexical (creation of new words), phonological (irregularity of pronunciation), graphological (irregularity of spelling), and semantic deviations (transference of meaning). However, the original model and its new renditions are not, never have been, and seem unlikely ever to be, meant to enumerate all the mechanisms by which GD users break language rules and deviate from its norms. Since there are personal, social, moral, and technical constraints on the dos (what to say/do) and don'ts (what not to say/do), i.e., universal unspeakables, these devices are used to sidestep administrators' warnings and bans, to bypass explicitness and offensiveness, and to conceal intentionality and directness. More attention is needed to discover what linguistically happens when a username is formed. The more usernames are created, the more euphemisms and linguistic devices are employed.
Additionally, the fact that all world languages use euphemism is universally accepted. Halliday (1978) holds that all languages have more than one mode of word-creation; different modes are adopted for different purposes. In Vernacular Arabic (VA), par exemple, many of the proposed categories, not all, are applicable, such as the hyperbole yiftah akkah (invading Acre) for (breaking the hymen in virginal sex) and the metaphor yifaddy guzah (emptying the hookah) for 'urination, masturbation, or ejaculation'. Likewise, Qur'anic Arabic (QA) spawns a variety of euphemistic substitutes for sex and sexual relations, and that is why the word sex (Arabic jins) has no mention throughout this Book. Instead innocuous words are employed to maintain physical balance and avoid sexual arousal. Typical examples include the metaphor clothing (Arabic libasun), the metonym touch (Arabic lamastum), the innuendo plough (Arabic harthun) and the litotes not a good deed (Arabic amalun ghayru salih), to name but a few. Other euphemisms, which can technically be termed antonomasias, for getting round naming God include the ninety-nine attributive sobriquets (Fairest Names), such as the Almighty (al-qadir), the Eternal (al-samad), the Creator (al-khaliq), the Resurrectionist (al-ba c ith), the First (al-awwal), and the Last (al-akhir), in addition to the omni-qualities such as the Omnipresent, the Omnipotent, and the Omniscient. The reverence for naming God spreads to his prophet Muhammad, for whom there are many euphemistic sobriquets as the Prophet (al-nabiyy), the Messenger (al-rasul), the Seal (al-khatam), the Herald (al-bashir/al-nadhir), the Example (al-uswah), and so forth. VA and QA euphemisms cross-linguistically prove that, as Howard (1983 ) explains it, euphemism varies from age to age and culture to culture and the methods are manifold: abbreviate, borrow a foreign tongue, use litotes, use a vague phrase, use circumlocution, be enigmatical or poetical, use concomitant circumstance, be bombastic, use understatement, hint, direct thought, and reversible phrases. Howard (1983) and Lawler (cited in Hines, 1999) inspire the best conclusion here: Euphemism is one of the agents of change in a language. It always has and it always will. (Howard, 1983) And if there is this much here, what might there be elsewhere? (Lawler, 1990quoted in Hines, 1999 he meanings of tionary of Slan