Talk:Anthimeria

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Validity of the term[edit]

I'm sorry *Anthimeria doesn't mean anything. The prefix is clearly anti-, not *anthi-, and -meria from meris -idos, "part", therefore meria or mereia. I propose that this entry is changed to either Antimeria or Antimereia for the sake of common sense. In my opinion a better description of the term is needed as well.

Alcinoos

That's as may be, but "anthimeria" gets 599 Google hits, all or mostly all in English, compared to "antimeria"'s 354, none or almost of none of which are in English, and "antimereia"'s 91; so insofar as any of these terms is in English use, it's "anthimeria" by quite a margin. —Ruakh_TALK 20:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a page http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Transwiki:Antimeria --Cruncher 14:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now it's over here: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/antimeria. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 01:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric vs language change[edit]

As the article points out in its intro, this is a term of rhetoric. Presumably it applies primarily when somebody does it achieving, intentionally or not, a particular rhetorical effect. The section on modern examples and slash, though, are about language change. While early uses may have been Anthimeria, I don't think the examples really apply the way they are. If this term has been co-opted into describing language change, then that's fine, but it probably doesn't belong in a section about rhetoric.--Brett (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And it doesn't seem that linguistics makes use of the term. It's not in either Crystal's A Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics (6 ed.) or in Matthews's The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics (2 ed.).--Brett (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's the nature of Wikipedia, barriers dissolve and previously localized words break out and get used (promiscuously) across all contexts. What's the proper rhetorical term for that now...? 2001:171B:2274:7C21:7477:5625:3765:DCB7 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slash example[edit]

Just like beziehungsweise (bzw.) in German. 2001:171B:2274:7C21:7477:5625:3765:DCB7 (talk) 21:30, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pasture" spring[edit]

Is this anthimeria? I did a quick internet search, nothing I found supported it as such. CerroFerro (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Book" as primary example of an anthimeria .[edit]

If "book" as a verb is an anthimeria, it is an anthimeria that is at least 1,000 years old. According to the Online Etymology Dictionary [1], our noun "book" and our verb "to book" derive from two distinct Old English words: bōc and bōcian. Their definitions correspond quite directly to our usages of "book" and "to book." In Old English, bōc means "document" or "charter;" bōcian means "to grant by charter." A better primary example of anthimeria would be a verb that is widely used, but still can be traced to the recent trend (a lazy one, in my opinion) towards the indiscriminate verbalization of nouns whenever convenient. My choice would be the word "privilege." Rev. H. Carlton Earwiggherd (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]