is one of the *rarest* words I've ever seen in print, and I just want to digress to say I find this remarkable. In HN's comment history, it's only been used 13 times (i++). And half those appearances (including this comment) are meta. Four of them discussed the dictionary meaning, since pg had used it once in a 1998 essay and they too [0] thought this remarkable. Two more mocked the word's appearence in a 2016 Livejournal post about socioeconomics.
https://hn.algolia.com/?query=impecunious&type=comment&dateR...
It's not obscure in every cultural sphere -- for example the NY Times has used it a fair number of times. Google's NGrams data suggest its popularity peaked in the 1880's.
https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=impecunious&ye...
[0] 'chops' in 2012: "In 1998, I had made an effort to do the whole "once a day, learn a random new word from the dictionary". I did that for exactly one day. The one word I learned was "impecunious." Up until now, I've never, ever, seen or heard that word used."
"So in 1998, independent, near simultaneous events (Viaweb being acquired, and me learning a single word) were set in motion that would culminate 14 years later in me reading for the first time an actual legitimate use of that word, resulting in a very self-satisfied grin. Consider my day made."
"It means "poor" btw."
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3462071
And here I am in 2021 -- appending to this generational thread, linked not by [reply] buttons but esoteric search engine queries, for the next HN'er to discover in the distant future. This is HN's 14th occurrence of "impecunious". I am signing out.