|WikiProject Languages||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Linguistics / Etymology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|The content of Pejoration was merged into Semantic change. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
I think an example of a word changing right now is nationality. Philosophically it's a concept all it's own - but in legal documents it's much more akin to citizenship (not exactly citizenship, but much closer to that than the old concept of nationality). And in common use "What is your nationality" is akin to "What is your ethnicity?" I'll leave it to the more experienced to decide whether or not to include this, but I wanted to bring it up to discussion. 1 December 2005
Isn't hyperbole the opposite of what is listed here? Crowley and Bowern (An Introduction to Historical Linguistics, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 203) say "an originally strong connotation of a word is lost because of constant use." They give the example of Latin "extonare" (strike with thunder), become French "etonner" (surprise). It is interesting the litotes, which is opposite to hyperbole uses the same example. Neillhowell (talk) 02:12, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Neil
I noticed people complaining about the examples,but really this article should have tons of examples. it doesnt even link with a "see also" to another page that has a list of specific examples right now. that needs to be changed. most people coming to this page are probably coming to it to learn about specific examples, not just about the phenomenon itself. also it seems like new words are being changed every few years, and a current exhautive list would be very useful here. for example, Im not happy about it at all, but the younger generation has decided to start using the word "sick" to mean(to them) "really cool". I for one think this is a stupid and sick use of the word sick, but where would one go to discover this information if they didn't already know about it? I think this article would be the best place to contain that type of specific information on specific words and list many examples, or at least a link to them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gawdsmak (talk • contribs) 16:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Awful as portmanteau?
Beautiful, delightful and remorseful could all be said as "full of beauty, delight or remorse". I don't think that it behooves the reader to throw other linguistic terminology at them for issues that are understood to them (-ful) and not fully understood to them (how -ful is a bound morpheme that comes from the free morpheme "full", etc.)
I guess, what I'm trying to get at is why it would be necessary to overly "jargonize" an intro snipet to Semantic Change with other heavy linguistic terminology, seemingly just added for its own sake. To me, portunhol, chillaxing and frappuccino are portmanteaux, not words like "awful" that simply underwent internal orthographic changes because of morphemic shift. Save the introduction of other linguistic jargon for more authentic examples.
Of mice and mice, a Blank, and the alleged similarity of concepts
- However, Blank's (1998) categorization has been gaining more and more acceptance:
- metaphor (= change based on similarity between concepts, e.g. mouse 'rodent' > 'computer device'; Grzega (2004) paraphrases this as “similar-to” relation)
(It doesn't identify "Blank 1998".)
Over seven years later, we are told:
- However, the categorization of Blank (1998) has gained increasing acceptance:
- Metaphor: Change based on similarity between concepts, e.g., mouse "rodent" → "computer device".
(This still doesn't identify "Blank 1998".)
I do not understand the similarity between the concepts of rodent and computer [input] device. (Indeed, to me they seem extraordinarily dissimilar concepts.) What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)