Sorry to start this but I'm a grammar Nazi sometimes and I can't let this one go but I'm posting here so as not to take the original thread it was posted in OT again. Besides, grammar is an interesting debate academically so if anyone else wants to weigh in, please do.
The old 'English is an evolving language' argument. Seen it a million times before and it's still wrong. If you're talking colloquial English (which never claims to be correct), maybe but the reason why you won't see it in Oxford, etc. is because for the official language to evolve the new word or combination of words to form a new one has to follow a logical (read again; LOGICAL) path and the end result has to have logical meaning. Based on the original meaning, sticking omni in front of the word is logically incorrect which is WHY it's not in the dictionaries of the world.English is a flawed, often silly language and it remains an evolving language. There is nothing "wrong" whatsoever about the way in which I have adapted "omnipresent". Definitions are not all clear cut so my superior adaptation should be respected as it is, and by none other than one of the world's most omnierudite leading social commentators ever, ME. Words take on different meanings over the years and you need to be of flexible mind to come to terms with this.
I mean, you can't be 'omniintelligent' can you? You are either intelligent or not. What determines that level is subjective and has to have other words around it to describe how (just like erudite) but the labelling has to be applied correctly and in your case, it is you who are on the wrong side of the argument here. All you need to do is look up the form of the word 'erudite' (dictionary.com won't help you on this one, mate) and you'll see applying omni to erudite is strictly incorrect. Anyone who has done any form of English language at 1st year Uni level would know this is why I'm astonished I'm still seeing this argument come out of your mouth. A cursory glance at its etymology (use dictionary.com to look up 'etymology') will show you why your use is just plain wrong.
Interesting note; I chucked the word into google and aside from the 'Grandiloquent Dictionary', a few sites like Amazon using it in a keyword search and a few blog links (NB: absolutely NO proper dictionary or sites similar were sighted), the following came up:
Interesting. It seems the person promulgating the word most is you. Can't say I'm surprised. This is also incredibly interesting in light of your criticism of Richard's post count. Just how many other forums are you signed up to?
I thought you were gone? What a surprise to see you back purely to insult someone.Lawsy is right. A high post count is the mark of the unemployable and/or the aimless drifter.
If you don't need to sleep, and you have more time on your hands than most, you should be helping out at the soup kitchen, or writing the first great novel of the 21st century, or learning Japanese, not haunting an internet forum making thousands of banal observations.
Your life is a gift to be seized with both hands, not trudged through, filling time in meaningless ways.
Sorry to take this thread OT again