Is "initiatic" a legitimate adjective in English?

The available sources seem to differ: on-line Collins ignores it, and so does Merriam-Webster, while Reverso gives it full blessing even offering its Italian, German and French counterparts (“iniziatico”, “initiatisch”, “initiatique”) - but it could be just a figment of their AI’s imagination. And Etymonline quotes its relatives “initiation” and “initiate” but not “initiatic”.
On paper the great Langenscheidt (German-English) doesn’t mention it and an authoritative SEI (Italian-English) proposes a not very convincing “initiatory” instead.

Just to clarify the obvious, an “initiatic(?) language” is (or should be) the arcane parlance used by the adepts of a sect, guild, profession, religion or whatnot, meant to intimidate the layman and to prevent him from fathoming the depth of their shallowness. If memory serves, in my green years even the boy-scouts had one, comprehensive of a few cryptic words (all of them duly capitalized) a novice wasn’t allowed to utter before taking his Oath.

I understand that my question has little to do with the etymology of this somewhat unusual term, but I can hardly think of a better environment where to ask it. Will you bear with me?

1 Like

Well, the way English works, all that has to happen for a word to become legitimate is that people use it. A search on Google Books immediately turns up two fairly new Spirituality books that have the word in the titles.


Thank you Talia, I suppose you’re right - “est usus qui facit linguas”, and definitely not just in English.
Upon a second thought, if in everyday talk people accept and [pretend to] understand “words” like TTYL, WYSIWYG and ASAP, I don’t see why they should scowl at a much easier to guess “initiatic” :laughing:

Thus I should perhaps shift my question to “would it make any sense to add ‘initiatic’ to Etymonline, or is the word too far away from the common commercial routes?”

1 Like

Done. Initiatic.