Neologisms. There is a term in linguistics which by its very nature is ambiguous and that is the term neologism. In dictionaries it is generally defined as ' a new word or a new meaning for an established word.' Everything in this definition is vague. How long should words or their meanings be. regarded as new? Which words of those that appear as new in the language, say during the life-time of one generation., can be regarded as established? It is suggestive that the latest editions of certain dictionaries avoul the use of the stylistic notation "neologism" apparently because of its ambiguous character. If a word is fixed in a dictionary and provided that the dictionary is reliable, it ceases to be a neologism. If a new meaning is recognized as an element in the semantic structure of a lexical unit, it ceases to be new.. However, if we wish to divide the word-stock of a language into chronological periods, we can conventionally mark off a period which might be called new. Every period in 'the development of a language produces an enormous number of new words, or new meanings of established words. Most of them do not live long. They are not 'meant to live long. They are, as . it were, coined for use at the moment of speech, and therefore possess a peculiar property Чthat of temporariness. The given word or meaning holds only in the given context and is meant only to "serve the occasion." However, such is the power of the written language that a word or a meaning used only to serve the occasion, when once fixed in writing, may become part and parcel of. the general vocabulary irrespective of the quality of the word. In this connection it might be noted that such words as субъект, объект and their derivatives as well as тип, прэгресс, пролетариат and, others introduced into the literary Russian language by V. G. Belinsky have become legitimate Russian words firmly established in the word-stock of the Russian language and are no longer felt to be alien to the literary language as they were in the nineteenth century. Literary critics, men-of-letters and linguists have manifested different attitudes towards new -coinages both literary and colloquial. Ever since the 16th century, literature has shown example after example of the losing battle of the purists whose strongest objection to the new words was on the score of their obscurity. A. A. Baugh points out-that the great exponent of this view was Thomas Wilson. His "Arte of Rhetorique" (1533) was several times reprinted and was used by Shakespeare.