Talk:Holophrasis

[Untitled][edit]

I intended to start this article as a stub. Isnt there enough information to warrant this? I have seen so called "stubs" with less information.

This has been marked as a dicdef, but I completely disagree. It is a valid encyclopedic concept. Bhumiya/Talk 02:21, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to link this article closer to topics on language development. --Dairhenien (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any modern linguistic evidence of "All native american languages are holophrastic"?. That is 1. a pretty huge call 2. undermines Universal Grammar in a way that I assume would make it far more common knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.78.172 (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the chapter in question, Sidis appears to be confusing holophrasis with an agglutinative language, which combines multiple morphemes to a stem to form a single word, which can express a complex idea. But critically, these morphemes contain all of the semantic content necessary to specify that meaning, whereas holophrasis uses often a single morpheme to stand in for a more complex idea. --Dairhenien (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it holophrastic to reduce the phrase 'How do you do' to the single word 'Howdy' or is the usage confined to language acquisition by toddlers? If this 'glyphing' is universal in language acquisition or usage, it makes little sense to select certain languages for special mention, unless studying specific features.

Decemberjazz (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we have to distinguish between the etymology of the word and the underlying form as possessed by speakers of the language. Most greeting words don't have a lot of semantic content, at least not in the truth conditional sense. They are used more for pragmatic effect, to create an illocutionary force--in this case, the initiation of friendly communication in an informal context. But yes, I agree that holophrasis is more typical of a stage of language development rather than a feature of a developed language. I would recommend removing the section or clarifying the difference in terminology. --Dairhenien (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]