Talk:Homonym

Repetitive?

The definition of the word is written in the ingress and in the definition. Isn’t one time enough? Eikern 23:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Debate over the correct name

The debate over the correct name: Homonyms vs Homophones: http://www.go2net.com/useless/useless/homonym.html (dead link) -- Ellmist Monday, November 25th, 2002

The discussion is not pointless at all. And the definitions as of homonymes, -phones, and -graphes as they are now seem obscure and unreasonable to me. I suggest the following classification: Homonymes: Words with different meaning but identical in writing or pronunciation; Homophones: Words which are pronounced the same; Homographs: Words which are written the same.

I agree with this classification. It seems to be the accepted definition. See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=homonym The article in some places suggested that homonyms were always both; I tried to change that. JeremyStein 17:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

This topic is a complete rat's nest... practically every source seems to say something slightly different. I have stuck with the above definition as it seems to be the most popular, but tried to clarify further and also alert readers to the fact that these different interpretations are out there. Matt 16:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC).

I also found the discussion of the confusion useful and hence appropriate. It also serves to reinforce understanding of what the underlying variables involved are; useful if one's morning coffee hasn't kicked in yet. In fact, it seems a model clearing up of potential confusion; thanks for the good work...--FurnaldHall (talk) 16:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where should I factor in the following observation?

I've seen a number of instances where non-native speakers (particularly Hindi-speaking people) use the spelling "their" for "there". There may be similar observations of L1 influence (native tongue influence) coupling with confusion with homophones that are not homographs. Where do we mention these (if at all this is verifiable)? -- Sundar 06:26, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

This is hardly limited to non-native speakers. Correct spelling of homophones is something that has to be taught, and not everyone learns it well. One sees it distressingly often in people who have been speaking English all their lives. Csernica 19:58, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Reduced "to"

It is too dialectical. Nohat, it may be reduced when you speak naturally, but it sure isn't when I speak naturally. Csernica 19:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not dialectical. There are no dialects that have distinct rules for the reduction of function words. Sociolects, perhaps, with reduction extremely mildly marked in the very highest acrolect. And it's certainly the case that the amount of reduction is in free variation, depending on speed of speech or social situation, but there are no dialects that differ on whether or not to ever takes a reduced form. There is no dialect where "to" always has a full vowel. Nohat 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the example at hand, where I can detect in my own speech a much shortened vowel there but not a schwa. You said before that the vowel in this case is reduced and that the reduction is not dialectical. Perhaps it's just a bad example. TCC (talk) (contribs) 08:49, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that English education causes people to lose the ability to speak naturally while at the same time being aware of their speech. For many people, when they think about the words, the spelling will influence the pronunciation in such a way that the way they pronounce it is inherently unnatural. In other words, when you're thinking about the sounds of the words you're saying (linguists call this "careful speech"), then the sounds actually change and the result is very different from what is called "normal speech". In normal speech, when to is an ordinary function word, not stressed or used contrastively, then it is always pronounced with schwa unless it comes before a vowel or at the end of the sentence. Here it is not used to contrast with any other words in the sentence, it comes before a consonant, and is not sentence final, so it is pronounced with schwa. If you are pronouncing it with a full vowel, you are probably speaking with "careful speech" and giving the word sentence stress or contrastive stress: "to much to do in two days". However, the unmarked reading for the sentence is to not give any stress at all to the word "to". This is not a dialectical variation, but simply an idiosyncrasy that results from thinking about what you're saying. Nohat 09:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleave is not a heteronym

I removed the second sentence from:

The National Puzzlers' League calls homographs heteronyms. This term is particularly appropriate where the homograph, such as cleave, has two opposite meanings, "to split" and "to cling close".

Heteronyms are homographs that are not also homophones. Both meanings of cleave are spelledpronounced the same way, thus it is not an appropriate example. JeremyStein 18:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you meant to point out that both meanings are pronounced the same way? The two different meanings of "close" are a better example, perhaps. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. The two meanings of "close" would be a good example of a heteronym, but they aren't antonyms, so I still see no use for that sentence. JeremyStein 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Cleave is both a homonym and an auto-antonym (q.v.) --Jmptdc 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

"Homonyms - Due Ewe No Witch Whirred Qualifies".

< http://rogersreference.com/rrhomonyms.htm >:

"Homonyms - Due Ewe No Witch Whirred Qualifies".

Hopiakuta 23:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Another intro example

Wouldn't it be better to have a "two, too, to" example in the intro? From the existing intro, it's not clear to me that "homonym" includes same-sound-different-spelling groups, as I don't think of those as the "same word". Thanks, William Pietri 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Bihomonyms, trihomonyms and polyhomonyms

You have just invented these, haven't you? We cannot do our own research nor can we coin new words in Wikipedia. We can only cite what we find what has been created elsewhere. See Wikipedia: What wikipedia is not. Dieter Simon 01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do not keep adding your item about bihomonyms, trihomonyms and polyhomonyms, without adding also suitable source materials and citations, otherwise we must assume these are your own inventions and we will regard them to be vandalism, and will automatically remove them. Dieter Simon 23:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Auto-antonyms

Should auto-antonym be added to the list of Variants and sub-types? Auto-antonyms are a particularly provocative and entertaining sub-type of homograph/homophone. Regrettably, adding this sub-type here would necessitate inventing an awkward noun, auto-antonymy. At the very least, shouldn't there be a cross-reference to the Wiki entry on auto-antonym? 4granite 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Bank

a river bank, a savings bank, a bank of switches, and a bank shot in pool

In these four contexts, the word bank, though it possesses various meanings, do all derive from the same origin. A bank was a variant of a bench (the original Italian word banco preserves both meanings): the risen side of a river is a bank (=bench) in that it can be stood or rested upon; moneylenders and financiers in Italy sat at a banco; an array of switches is set out on a board (=table) or bank (=bench); and a bank shot is one where the ball banks (hits off) the cushion (to bank: to lean or diverge, as if hitting or sliding off a bench). Nuttyskin (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

different meanings of fluke have different etymologies?

what is the evidence or source of this?

This is one of those occasions where any good dictionary will help you out. This not a matter of unsusbstantiated facts taken out of thin air, the various forms of "fluke" may be checked at a moment's notice. Apart from the disambiguation article "fluke" which gives you umpteen different homonyms of it, there is also the Wiktionary entry for it. Trying to cite the facts from one dictionary would choose one out of many dictionaries that would do equally well. Dieter Simon 00:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Most dictionaries refer to the Anglo-Saxon etymology of 'floc' meaning plaice and refer to the shape. How does your reminding me that there are many modern forms of the word count as evidence that they have separate etymologies? Glennh70 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought you were referring to the disambiguation page for "fluke", where you have the various homographs of "fluke", none of which mentions its derivation or etymology. Since no statement or claim was made as to each their etymologies, they would thus not need having their source substantiated, I really am not sure what you mean here. A disambiguation does not need to do cite its sources, because it can be followed to each article by its links. You would need to look at each article to find that out. Dieter Simon 00:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I was looking at the wrong article, wasn't I? I was looking at the disambiguating article for fluke, sorry. I don't what made me do that.

However, as for your statement that most etymologies state that "fluke" originates with 'floc', take alook at [1].

So, it doesn't seem quite as straightforward as you think. There are then at least three different versions quoted by one particular source alone. In that case, the original statement in the article "homonym" isn't that far off the mark. Dieter Simon 10:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

desert - dessert

"Homographic examples include desert (to abandon) and dessert (a thing deserved)." Aren't they homophones? Hardy and Tiny 07:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

and, for that matter, aren't those words NOT a homographic example, considering they are NOT spelled the same?FangsFirst (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Neither homographs nor homophones, since both spelling and pronunciation differ.

Table contradictions

The table that lists the sameness and difference of the spelling, sound and meaning does not match the definitions in the near-by writing, specifically, the table states that homonyms are spelled differently, while the definition of a homonym states that it is both spelled and sound the same but with different meanings. Oliana (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Oliana, you have noticed our 'deliberate mistake'. Have reverted "homonym". Dieter Simon (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

move to "Homonymy"?

The article is about Homonymy in general, so shouldn't it be moved to "Homonymy"? "Homonym", as a single instance, doesn't seem as encycopedic for an article title? Who agrees in this instance? 4.255.54.96 (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Yet the first reference work I consulted, "The Oxford Companion to the English Language", editor Tom McArther, 1992, gives Homonym and not Homonymy with reference to the actual word rather than the concept ("one of two or more words that are identical in sound or spelling but different in meaning"). It is not so much the "single instance", as you call it, but whether you are highlighting the word or not. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

About / aboot

Why are "about" and "aboot" listed in the Venn diagram? Neither spelling nor pronunciation are the same, at least not in British English. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.11.156 (talk) 22:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

This is in the sector for "same meaning, same spelling, different pronunciation". My guess is that the text about / "aboot" is trying to say that the word about (spelled about) can be pronounced in two different ways, and that "aboot" is meant to indicate the alternative pronunciation. I agree it's confusing, and I don't think it's a very good example. "aboot" is a fairly limited dialect/regional pronunciation in my experience. It's also sometimes spelled "aboot", which confuses things even more. From a BrE perspective, the two pronunciations of "either" (or "neither") seem like a better example, but I'm not sure how well they internationalise. 86.146.46.169 (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC).

If we're talking about the Venn diagram, the use of the example "desert/desert" is confusing at best. I believe in British English the meal is spelt "dessert" and the descriptor of a place with extreme conditions is spelt "desert". "bow/bow" is a better example, I think (meaning something you tie with string, and the action). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.86.59 (talk) 19:30, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Huh? The spelling of "dessert" is irrelevant. The two words being compared, as is clearly stated, are "desert (leave)" and "desert (arid region)". Same spelling, different pronunciation, different meaning. 86.152.243.15 (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC).

This is not a good example because one could argue that the name for a waterless region is derived from the fact that it is a region that is deserted i.e. everything has left.

Bow ad nauseam

The definitions "bow: a device used to play a violin" and "bow: a weapon used to shoot arrows" are clearly the same meaning: a string attached to a bent stick. These do not pass the test of "spelled and sound the same but mean different things." Furthermore the string is not part of the "bow" --- it has it's own word "bowstring". In this manner the use of "bow" as in "bow legged" is also exactly the same --- long and curved --- as those two prior meanings. This reasoning can also be applied to "bow" meaning the prow of a boat and "bow" meaning to "curve ones body downwards," even though that is generally pronounced differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.224.18 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The text talks about "bow" also having "several related but distinct meanings" (my italics), and implies that the list is knowingly including "polysemous" meanings such as the ones you have pointed out. 81.151.35.79 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)