Pherdinand, from my point of view we have this word, bokeh, wich is used for explaining a phenomenon with vague defenition. The problem with "bokeh" is that it is not possible to hear from the word what it describes. Now, this is not an unusual problem for a word, but the lack of a good description for this one makes it more notecible. A discussion here of how to describe the phenomenon would therefore be a good thing in my opinion.
From that, it is possible to either continue to use "bokeh" (like we use a lot of loan words) or make a new word from the description, like for example SOFA.
Two things, in my mind, speaks for the continued use of the existing bokeh word:
First, a new word that would keep its description in it, would be very static. It wouldn´t be satisfactory unless it had a perfect defenition from birth, if it only came close to explaining what we wanted, there would always be a need for changing it as better descriptions came along. Furthermore it would be hard to change the definition if needed.
Secondly bokeh is a word that already exists and is used for the exact same thing that the new word would explain, which gives it a lead, however a small one.
On the other hand it would probably be easier to spread a defenition together with a new word, than the defenition of an existing one alone.
Now, in spite of the impression from the lenght of this post, this is not a really important issue for me, and I will gladly use whatever word that becomes used to talk of such delicate matters!
