mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest
Words seem to be exponentially universal when written. Options
pljames
Posted: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:11:07 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
Think
By that I mean each word has more than one meaning, plus it (the word allows the writer to think exponentially and not the word) exponentially). Thought's please. Paul
Romany
Posted: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:35:00 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/14/2009
Posts: 17,927
Neurons: 58,236
Location: Brighton, England, United Kingdom
Well now, Paul, I wouldn't agree with the premise that 'each word has more than one meaning'.

Some do: 'hawk', 'rear' 'bow'.

Others don't: "each","word", "has".

And I don't think words on the "don't" list throw up a quest for synonyms: I don't think people look for another word to express "has", for example.

Remember: a "synonym" has only a similar meaning. NOT the exact same meaning. And for (nearly) every feeling, or thing, or description, there is one perfect, apt, word. Other words might come close, but only one is the exact, right, word.

pljames
Posted: Thursday, December 18, 2014 5:50:41 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
Romany wrote:
Well now, Paul, I wouldn't agree with the premise that 'each word has more than one meaning'.

Some do: 'hawk', 'rear' 'bow'.

Others don't: "each","word", "has".

And I don't think words on the "don't" list throw up a quest for synonyms: I don't think people look for another word to express "has", for example.

Remember: a "synonym" has only a similar meaning. NOT the exact same meaning. And for (nearly) every feeling, or thing, or description, there is one perfect, apt, word. Other words might come close, but only one is the exact, right, word.



Then which word is the right word? Coming close to the right word takes synonyms, there are no perfect words.
Paul

kasparijus
Posted: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:19:07 AM

Rank: Newbie

Joined: 8/28/2014
Posts: 38
Neurons: 174,194
Location: Višnjan, Istarska, Croatia
I guess that every word may acquire new or additional meaning. A live language is permanently in development, mostly in the street and eventually ends up in dictionaries. Take "cool" for example. It's now an everyday word in Croatian. Twenty years ago it was nonexistent in the world of teenagers.
rogermue
Posted: Friday, December 19, 2014 1:38:22 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/28/2012
Posts: 5,045
Neurons: 34,900
Location: München, Bavaria, Germany
Hi Paul, your "exponentially universal" is a dazzling formulation.
I am smitten. Did you invent it or was it Grammarly that suggested it?
kertas
Posted: Friday, December 19, 2014 3:00:57 AM
Rank: Newbie

Joined: 12/19/2014
Posts: 1
Neurons: 3
WOW! This information made me understand something, and it is that I never knew before.
Elvandil
Posted: Friday, December 19, 2014 5:21:15 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 12/5/2014
Posts: 340
Neurons: 153,179
Location: East Montpelier, Vermont, United States
Words have both a denotation and a connotation. The best way to learn how synonyms differ and the subtle shades of words' meanings is to read, read, read, and talk to people well-versed in that language.

After you've read a few thousand books, you'll find yourself saying things like,
"I'm sorry. But that dictionary is just plain wrong!"

Though it is standard practice to regard the word as the unit of meaning, I think it should really be the sentence. A single word's meaning varies widely according to context, intonation, speed, and accentuation in how a sentence is pronounced, all things that can't be seen by studying individual words. That is why after 50 years of study, computer scientists still have been unable to produce a speaking computer or one that understands speech without wild and extravagant, Rube-Goldberg-like machinations and huge internal data stores. And they still sound like machines.
rogermue
Posted: Saturday, December 20, 2014 2:14:56 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 1/28/2012
Posts: 5,045
Neurons: 34,900
Location: München, Bavaria, Germany
Elvandil wrote:
Words have both a denotation and a connotation. The best way to learn how synonyms differ and the subtle shades of words' meanings is to read, read, read, and talk to people well-versed in that language.

After you've read a few thousand books, you'll find yourself saying things like,
"I'm sorry. But that dictionary is just plain wrong!"

Though it is standard practice to regard the word as the unit of meaning, I think it should really be the sentence. A single word's meaning varies widely according to context, intonation, speed, and accentuation in how a sentence is pronounced, all things that can't be seen by studying individual words. That is why after 50 years of study, computer scientists still have been unable to produce a speaking computer or one that understands speech without wild and extravagant, Rube-Goldberg-like machinations and huge internal data stores. And they still sound like machines.

---
or are able to explain to us things they want us to understand (I mean the computer specialists).
pljames
Posted: Saturday, December 20, 2014 3:47:28 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
rogermue wrote:
Hi Paul, your "exponentially universal" is a dazzling formulation.
I am smitten. Did you invent it or was it Grammarly that suggested it?


There is a software that's called Visual Thesaurus. I got my idea from that. Paul
pljames
Posted: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:12:38 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
Elvandil wrote:
Words have both a denotation and a connotation. The best way to learn how synonyms differ and the subtle shades of words' meanings is to read, read, read, and talk to people well-versed in that language.

After you've read a few thousand books, you'll find yourself saying things like,
"I'm sorry. But that dictionary is just plain wrong!"

Though it is standard practice to regard the word as the unit of meaning, I think it should really be the sentence. A single word's meaning varies widely according to context, intonation, speed, and accentuation in how a sentence is pronounced, all things that can't be seen by studying individual words. That is why after 50 years of study, computer scientists still have been unable to produce a speaking computer or one that understands speech without wild and extravagant, Rube-Goldberg-like machinations and huge internal data stores. And they still sound like machines.


I need to go back to sentence structure. I'm losing my thought structure my word structure and my sentence structure. First comes the Subject then the word structure within a sentence. Am I expecting to much from using the language my way? Paul
pljames
Posted: Saturday, December 20, 2014 4:18:19 PM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
kasparijus wrote:
I guess that every word may acquire new or additional meaning. A live language is permanently in development, mostly in the street and eventually ends up in dictionaries. Take "cool" for example. It's now an everyday word in Croatian. Twenty years ago it was nonexistent in the world of teenagers.


Even tho I agree with you, how can I use a word that might have a charismatic meaning to the reader to think exponentially, and do not have to find a word or words to define the sentence? Is there such a thing as exponential charisma using one word within a sentence like the word exponential itself? Paul
pljames
Posted: Sunday, December 21, 2014 9:54:49 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 10/12/2013
Posts: 1,414
Neurons: 15,207
Location: Marble, North Carolina, United States
Romany wrote:
Well now, Paul, I wouldn't agree with the premise that 'each word has more than one meaning'.

Some do: 'hawk', 'rear' 'bow'.

Others don't: "each","word", "has".

And I don't think words on the "don't" list throw up a quest for synonyms: I don't think people look for another word to express "has", for example.

Remember: a "synonym" has only a similar meaning. NOT the exact same meaning. And for (nearly) every feeling, or thing, or description, there is one perfect, apt, word. Other words might come close, but only one is the exact, right, word.



I agree. But is it possible to look at a word either the history of the word are the synonymies of a word and create another word from the original word as if linking a word to a series of synonymies of the original word? Paul
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.