Talk:Hyponymy and hypernymy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Hyponymy)
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Linguistics / Theoretical Linguistics  (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

hyponym talk[edit]

Typo & Link Suggestion[edit]


In his classic formulation, the linguist C.E. Bazell stated, "There is a relation of hyponymy when one word may invariable be replaced by a second word, but not vice-versa, without change of meaning."

i assume 'invariable' is meant to be 'invariably', especially considering the source of the quote is a linguist.
as an aside, i think hyponymy describes a non-commutative synonymy between two words. (e.g., i could use "temperature" in place of "fever" everytime, but not "fever" in place of "temperature" everytime. e.g., "he shouldn't exhaust himself because of his 'fever'." can be expressed (albeit less specifically) as "he shouldn't exhaust himself because of his 'temperature'.") so, a link to "commutivity" or the like may be good for this reason. Factotum 04:59, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Latest revision[edit]

Why has a whole chunk of text been taken out? In my opinion it serves to explain the concept in a manner that is easier to understand. Little muddy funkster 18/05/05

hypernym talk[edit]

opening line[edit]

The opening line "A hypernym is a word whose extension includes the extension of the word of which it is a hypernym."... what the hell does that mean? That's like "Red is the colour which red objects can be said to have" or "The north is the place to the north of an understood location"... Imĵalo

I'm quite certain that the automobile and vehical example is backwards.... Hopefully someone agrees with me and can confirm that and change it. I'm not confident enough to change it.

Greek word[edit]

According to the article for -onym linked from this article, "hypernym" is an "incorrectly formed neologism". Based on that and what I do know about Greek etymology, the listed Greek word υπερνύμιον should not exist. Tsunomaru 02:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


"According to Fromkin and Rodman, hyponyms are a set of related words whose meaning are specific instances of a more general word (so, for example, red, white, blue, etc., are hyponyms of colour). Hyponymy is thus the relationship between a general term such as polygon and specific instances of it, such as triangle".

Is this specific example used by Fromkin and Rodman? I ask because this paragraph seems to conflate two relations: is-subclass-of (which is what hyponymy has always meaned to me) and is-instance-of. Red is not a subclass of colour; "X is red" does not entail "X is a colour". No definition I've been able to find supports the is-instance-of interpretation. Can anyone give justification for keeping it in the article? Ilkali (talk) 08:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the definition given by Fromkin and Rodman is correct. I think that the hyponymy relations includes (partially!) two relations: is-subclass-of and is-instance-of.
"Red is not a subclass of colour." I am not sure. It depends on your defition of the class.
("X is red" does not entail "X is a colour".) I suppose that the hyponymy relation "red::color" (in this (particular!) case) is more similar to the relation is-instance-of than to is-subclass-of. --AKA MBG (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


The standard quick definition of "vehicle" is something with wheels... so a ship is not a vehicle. Is a dogsled, used in the example, a vehicle? Or is it a conveyance but not a vehicle? Monado (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussion of improvement of the respective articles. This isn't a forum. Ilkali (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
And the question is about the accuracy of something stated in the article. — trlkly 04:05, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was to keep hyponymy, merge umbrella term and blanket term k kisses 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The article "umbrella term" is introduced with: An umbrella term is a word that provides a superset or grouping of related concepts, also called a hypernym, where hypernym links to this page (hyponymy). Well, if they are synonymous, as this indiciates, then why should there be two different articles? Then there's blanket term, which I also find difficult to distinguish from umbrella term. I propose that either:

  1. The articles are merged into one, being descriptions of the same concept; or
  2. The articles are kept separate, but clearly stating how they differ and relate to the other terms.

I'm leaning towards #1, but I'm no linguist. /skagedal... 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Another option could be to merge blanket term and umbrella term, but leave hyponymy separate as the technical, linguistic term for this.  LinguistAtLarge  17:41, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with this. Umbrella term and blanket term are basically the same thing. Hyponymy is different precisely because it is a technical term. bd2412 T 05:06, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Don't merge, per LinguistAtLarge. As suggested, the difference should be described in the articles. --Vsion (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
    • closing discussion with consensus to keep the hyponymy article. ps: i believe "blanket term" can be considered a hyponym to "hyponymy" - all blanket terms are hyperonyms, but all hyperonyms are not blanket terms. k kisses 19:45, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hypernym Is a Misspelling of Hyperonym[edit]

The subject line says it all. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit of searching reveals that both hypernym and hyperonym are used by linguists, and both terms are acceptable etymological variants of the Greek, e.g.
Etymology: from hyper- above, extra + -(o)nym name. in Gk.: , literally meaning 'name above' [[1]] Hypernym is used in linguistics text books, e.g. Finegan, E. and Besnier, N. (1989) Language: Its Structure and Use. Hyperonym is preferred by other linguists, seemingly because of a more direct Greek derivation. Manfred Stede explains that hyperonym is "alternatively called 'hypernym' in many publications: 'hyperonym' seems preferable, as the Greek root is 'hyper' (super) + 'onoma' (name)." Stede, M. (2000). The hyperonym problem revisited: Conceptual and lexical hierarchies in language generation. In Proceedings of the first international conference on Natural language generation - Volume 14 Hyperonym(e) is also used in other languages such as German and French, for example see the entry for hyperonyme in Dubios et al (1973). Dictionnaire de linguistique. HLTLinguist (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)HLTLinguist

D***. Nice work researching. I looked at the paper by Stede you provided and verified this. You provided a reference to a formal research paper by a linguist, so what I'll do is basically fill in the "citation needed" in the article with your link(s).
I wouldn't say it's a misspelling so much as a preferred term. Anyhoo, this is WP:V. Going to change the article. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

What does superordinate mean?[edit]

Superordinate redirects to Hyponymy, but there is no mention of superordinate in the Hyponymy article. Please define superordinate and its relationship to hyponymy. (talk) 15:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)