Talk:-onym

Hi, Violetriga, re backronym, you're saying that backronym was an acronym "that was not originally so intended". Have you any substantiation for that, in every case? Even if it was so in one particular case, can you really say that it was so in every backronym example? If it was so in the case of Fiat, you need to tell us how so. Sorry, Dieter Simon 18:08, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hey. I took the meaning from the main Backronym article which makes the two things sound different. As was (and now is again) written it makes me think that a backronym is an acronym that forms another word, such as BASIC, DWARF or LISP. The way the primary article infers is that it's a new meaning of any acronym, whether it spells a word or not, like Lufthansa or Fiat. I believe the latter to be correct - perhaps there's another word for the former? Not that I'm an expert on such things! violet/riga 18:14, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Looking into this a bit further, Violetriga, yes, I realize that you took it from the main article but the version of the "backronym" article seems to have been taken from The New Hacker's Dictionary. While the "H. D." seems to be in the public domain and therefore is ok to be used from the copyright point of view - though I am not really sure about that - why requote yet again an article which appears in at least twenty websites I had dug out on Yahoo Search alone. I think we might be a bit more original an create our own versions, don't you think? I know you meant well but I think it is better this way. Dieter Simon 22:40, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to answer my question. The way I take the word is different, it seems, to the way you take it. Yes, we probably could do better than the current backronym article but as I see it the meaning listed here is different to the meaning on that page and I don't think that's right. violet/riga 23:20, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hi again, violet, my objection to the main article (“Backronym”), and therefore its being repeated under the –onym article, is mainly this:

The first para of “backronym” was taken over from here almost word for word. We should never verbatim copy a definition from another source without citing that source and obviously first obtaining their permission to do so. That is the whole point of copyright law. Now, it is possible that “The Hacker’s Dictionary” (Jargon File) is entirely published in the public domain, but I somehow doubt it, especially when you read the intentions (that word again) of the editor and his small number of co-editors who only after strict perusal allow passage of the submissions made by members of the mailing list. That is what ultimately appears in the “Dictionary”. The “intentions” of the editor may be seen here.

::::My second objection is the use of the phrase “interpreted as an acronym that was not originally so intended”. Ah, “intended”?
::::Take, for example, the acronym(s) “BASIC”. There are two backronyms called BASIC, which was certainly never brought out in the Backronym article.

::::The first one is the one as in “BASIC (English)”, an acronym for British, American, Scientific, Ineternational, Commercial, which was a reduced form of English developed in the 1920s by the writer and linguist C.K. Ogden. And what a nice resounding acronym it is.
::::The second is of course, our old friend, the computer language “Basic”, the acronym for “Beginner’s All Purpose Symbolic Instruction Code”, that also refers back to the word “basic”. So, one has the connotation of “reduced” and the other that of “beginner’s code”.

::::As for the quotation from the Hacker’s Dictionary, the examples shown derive from what hackers with a sense of humour submitted and which was passed tongue-in-cheek by the editor(s) which of course is highly entertaining and amusing. So the intention once again is clear; it is entirely that of being jocular and certainly retrospective as far as the backronym is concerned . Both the intentions are clear, only the originator’s intention has been subverted by the hackers’ intentions.

::::However (you knew there was going to be a however, didn’t you), it is very POV for an encyclopedia, such as Wikipedia which in all its efforts claims to be neutral with an NPOV intent, for ultimately we can’t have a jokester’s or even hacker’s attitudes protruding into our serious work, can we? So it’s for this reason. I altered the definition in the “–onym” article and think that the “Backronym” article should be changed. Sorry, you wanted to know. (;-) Dieter Simon 14:06, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, I am eating very humble pie, the more I am looking at this. What matters most is the fact that a backronym seems to refer to an ordinary noun that was not originally an acronym at all but was later changed amusingly or ironically into an imaginary one. Extremely sorry about this.Dieter Simon 15:33, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

No need to be sorry! Nice to see proper research into articles. Regards, violet/riga 18:47, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Doesn't this belong at -nym?

I think the article title should be -nym rather than -onym, because the root word is "nym", meaning "name". It just happens that many of the prefixes end with the letter "o", but the "o" is part of the prefix, not part of "nym". I don't see any harm in moving the article, but can't do it because a redirect is already in the way. - furrykef (Talk at me) 16:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• The suffixes list seems pretty inconsistent, e.g. why -cracy but -ography? I agree -nym seems like the best place for this. Kappa 17:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • To be pedantic, "nym" is more of a root word than a suffix, just one that almost always happens to be at the end of whatever word it appears in. That would suggest "Nym" without the hyphen, but then it still isn't a standalone word. By the way, I found that www.m-w.com has it as "-onym" as well, although I don't necessarily see that as justification for keeping the page here. - furrykef (Talk at me) 03:08, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • I have looked at three dictionaries, and all three give it as -onym: the Oxford Concise Dictionary of Lingustics, the Longman Dictionary of the English Language, and the Collins English Dictionary. Those are the only dictionaries I could lay my hand on for the moment, but I am sure other dictionaries would probably agree. Dieter Simon 23:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • Hmm, puzzling. I don't really look at it as a suffix "-onym", but rather a root word "nym" that requires a prefix, which often happens to end with "o". The only prominent example where "onym" is used with a prefix that doesn't normally end with "o" is "antonym"; one would expect "antinym". There are, however, some "-nym" words that do not end with "onym", for example, "hypernym" (though "hyperonym" is a variant). - furrykef (Talk at me) 19:35, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
    • The one thing we should consider, however, is that the "o" is not just a connective vowel as in, for example, "music(o)logy" but part of the original word in Greek for the word name = onuma, later onyma and onymon. So -onym derives really from the full Greek noun. Dieter Simon 00:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hominids, Canines, and Dryads?

I get that "Christian" and "Hurculean" are eponyms, "Iraqi" and "American" are demonyms, but what would words that signify relationships, like "hominid", "canine", and "dryad", be? Taxonyms? Specinyms? Is there a specific word for these? And is there a broader term that would include eponyms, demonyms, and other words ending in -ite, -id, -oid, -ine etc. (such as the aforementioned "dryad", "canine", and "hominid"), but exclude -onyms that do not signify a relationship? --Corvun 10:10, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, they are indeed "taxonyms". See [1] Constructing taxonomies. Dieter Simon 01:05, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Should "taxonym" be added to the page then? --Corvun 04:44, July 24, 2005 (UTC)

A person named for their characteristics

Can someone tell me what the literary term is for "of the Gleaming Sword" in the following sentence?

"The Knight of the Gleaming Sword".

Another example would be, "the Dragon Slayer" in "George the Dragon Slayer"

I think that it is something-onym but I cannot find it in the list.

Thanks!

Actually, the word you're looking for is "epithet." No "-onym" in it. --Nebulawindphone 14:57, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Opposonym?

opposonym: a word or phrase that appears to be the opposite of another word or phrase but actually has the same or a similar meaning, such as flammable and inflammable or fat chance and slim chance.

[2]

Not sure the term is notable enough to be worth listing ... but the concept probably is.... -- Smjg 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Oronym?

A word or string of words which is homophonic with another word or string of words. Examples include: Mint Spy and Mince Pie, Ice Cream and I Scream, Stuffy Nose and Stuff He Knows. See oronym.

May not be notable enough to be in the main body of the document, however it is worth adding somewhere.

The word oronym has a much older (and more traditional) meaning: a name of a mountain (from the Greek oros, mountain + -onym). I will add this word to the list. PlaysInPeoria 22:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Sources

It occurs to me that the list of -onym words would benefit from a bibliography of sources consulted, which would help to distinguish neologisms of the past 30 years from older words. PlaysInPeoria 22:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I decided to "be bold": I significantly expanded the article, which now includes a comprehensive (though certainly not complete) list of -onym words, with references (and cross-references), and a bibliography of "Sources Consulted." PlaysInPeoria 04:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

What's the Point?

A new major expansion of the article on 16 January 2006 was deleted and replaced with a less comprehensive and not particularly accurate version. Unfortunately, the purported explanation was less than enlightening.

This action, which occurred shortly after the expanded article was posted, appears whimsical (if not frivolous) and designed to circumvent a free exchange of ideas on the changes, which seems contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia.

It seems, based on evidence throughout Wikipedia, that one (apparently significant) purpose of articles on particular types of words is to provide extensive lists of such words.

In the case of words ending in -onym, a suffix for which new words are created quite randomly and without regard to existing words, a comprehensive list of such words, with meanings and cross-references, is not only important, but required.

Wikipedia might not be intended to be a dictionary, but, as the saying goes, if it looks like a duck, waddles like a duck, and quacks like a duck....

In short, the expanded version of the article should be restored and subject to free and open discussion, in the spirit of Wikipedia, as may be needed.

207.63.134.34 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)