This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
::::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)
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)
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)
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!
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.
Not sure the term is notable enough to be worth listing ... but the concept probably is.... -- Smjg 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
A puzzelment: Why was the section on "References / Further Reading" removed? What objection is there to the identification of significant works on the subject matter of the article?
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, many with definitions. For example, nearly the entire article, "-cide," is a list of words ending in -cide, with definitions — also known as a dictionary.
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.... I believe that the mere fact of a list of words (with or without definitions, etc.) is far less important the the purpose of such a list.
An acceptable purpose (according to Wikipedia's own regulations) for a dictionary-like list of words is when that information supports the subject matter of the article. The deleted version of the article fulfills that purpose.
Perhaps the format of the expanded version was at issue. Perhaps the light-hearted approach to certain sections of the article was deemed offensive. Format is easily corrected; elimination of pertinent content is problematic.
In short, the expanded version of the article should be restored and subject to free and open discussion (and revision), in the spirit of Wikipedia, as may be needed.
207.63.134.34 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
My explorations of Wiktionary and Wikipedia led me to conclude that the latter is a more appropriate source for substantive information on particular word forms. There are a goodly number of articles in Wikipedia that include extensive lists of words, many of which include definitions, as well. A surprising number of articles in Wikipedia are nothing more than lists of words.
In the case of words ending in -onym, there is an abundance of different words with similar meanings or individual words with contradictory meanings. The persons who coined many of the newer words can be identified. This kind of information was included in my now-reverted revision of the -onym article.
A Wikipedia article is the only truly logical place to identify and explore the causes of such occurrences and provide sufficient information (via definitions and cross-references) to define and evaluate the situation and hopefully sort out the confusion.
Frankly, a comprehensive and annotated list of words is required for a complete understanding of the -onym phenomenon, and this kind of article belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary.
PlaysInPeoria 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hyperonym seems to be missing on this page --toka, 28 May 2007
Article was blanked due to WP:DICDEF, but I think that's misapplied in this case. This is largely a Wikipedia:Lists and facilitates navigation of -onym words, for which there is no category or other navigational tool that I'm aware of at present. Шизомби ( talk) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The list has been deleted twice now by Wolfkeeper; it's true the AfD outcome does not prohibit changing the article. However, it does not authorize the article to be owned or for consensus to be ignored. How do we go about establishing consensus? If only a handful of people are involved in editing an article, that term always feels a bit forced when there's 11,203,649 named user accounts and who knows how many IPs. Шизомби ( talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what I suggested at AfD: there should be a small list of items illustrating different types of words ending in -onym. The lead section names these as Historic/Classic, Scientific, Language Games, and Nonce Words. I would recommend antonym, homonym, and pseudonym as Classic types (but I haven't read Sheetz, and don't know if this fits the taxonomy suggested there). For Scientific types, maybe hypernym, hyponym, demonym, and/or exonym (though I think antonym and homonym might fit here, too). I don't understand the difference between the latter two categories; words such as anacronym, backronym and retronym are rather like nonce words, and they're also playful (at least, I've never run into them outside of an implicit joking frame). Cnilep ( talk) 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Putting the list of -onyms together is better, although my reading of Wikipedia:Accessibility#Scrolling_and_collapsible_sections is that show/hide should not be used in article space as this is presently, but rather only in navboxes and infoboxes. The list strikes me as too long to employ either of those options. Шизомби ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with "synonym" is that precise synonymy is not as common as words that are simply, but imprecisely, considered interchangable. For instance, it is common to use a brand name to stand in for an entire category of product; this is imprecise usage, but widely understood. Is there any word like " folksynonym" for this type of word - almost, but not quite, a synonym? (I'm not proposing, I'm asking...) 187.143.12.189 ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is a reference guide to words ending in -onym that is more complete than the list in the article. In addition to identifying such words and defining them, this expanded reference guide includes sources keyed to each entry. I believe that, without sources that can be consulted by any reader, a list does not belong in Wikipedia.
I added this guide to the Talk page (rather than the article) in order to encourage discussion prior to editing the article. (Some of the introductory matter appears in the article; I included this information here for ease of reference.)
Article "reference guide" proposal
|
---|
Classes of -Onym WordsIt is not enough merely to name things — we must classify and name the types of names. This onymicon (i.e., lexicon of onyms; a back-formation from synonymicon) serves two purposes. It is, fundamentally, a dictionary of words with the suffix -onym, but it is also an attempt to clarify existing terminology. There are four discernible classes of -onym words: (1) historic, classic, or, for want of better terms, naturally occurring or common words; (2) scientific terminology, particularly occurring in linguistics, onomastics, etc.; (3) language games; and (4) nonce words. Older terms are known to gain new, sometimes contradictory, meanings (e.g., eponym and cryptonym). In many cases, two or more words describe the same phenomenon, but no precedence is discernable (e.g., necronym and penthonym). New words are sometimes created, unnecessarily, the meaning of which duplicate existing terms. Occasionally, new words are formed with little regard to historical principles. This dictionary attempts to identify all such occurrences. If appropriate, alternative word forms are suggested; cross-references are used extensively. A Consideration of Historical PrinciplesOriginally, all words in -onym were formed from Greek root words. Now, however, Latin root words are not unknown, but comprise a very small portion of the main entries herein; the earliest Latin example dates only from 1870. Historically, then, Greek root words are preferred over Latin. A number of main entries derive from other languages, such as English and French, and are all modern (later 20th century, early 21st century) constructions; in almost every instance, there is a preferred Greek or Latin counterpart. A small number of these modern constructions are plays on words or nonce words. The proper form of the suffix is -onym, though there are two legitimate examples where the "o" was replaced by "a" to avoid confusion with similarly spelled terms (ananym and metanym). Further, the "o" should never be replaced by a consonant. There is inevitably an appropriate root word which could have been employed in such constructions (e.g., zoonym instead of faunanym; charactonym instead of characternym). The Onymicon: A Lexicon of -Onym WordsKey: References, in brackets, correspond to the bibliography, “Sources Consulted.” Quotation marks around a main entry denote a word form that is not preferred. cf. = compare. ed. = edition. e.g. = for example. ff. = following. i.e. = that is. q.v., qq.v. = which see.
References / Further ReadingForeword. Specialized word-books employed as finding aids include A. F. Brown's Normal and Reverse English Word List, in 8 volumes (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1963), Martin Lehnert's Reverse Dictionary of Present-Day English (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1971),-Ologies & -Isms: A Thematic Dictionary, 2nd ed., edited by Laurence Urdang (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1981).
Sources Consulted
|
Thank you for your consideration. PlaysInPeoria ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Onomonym: one of those words ending in -onym? Just suggesting.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.202.34 ( talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This article was nominated for deletion on 7 December 2009. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
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)
::::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)
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)
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)
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!
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.
Not sure the term is notable enough to be worth listing ... but the concept probably is.... -- Smjg 11:37, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
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.
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)
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.
A puzzelment: Why was the section on "References / Further Reading" removed? What objection is there to the identification of significant works on the subject matter of the article?
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, many with definitions. For example, nearly the entire article, "-cide," is a list of words ending in -cide, with definitions — also known as a dictionary.
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.... I believe that the mere fact of a list of words (with or without definitions, etc.) is far less important the the purpose of such a list.
An acceptable purpose (according to Wikipedia's own regulations) for a dictionary-like list of words is when that information supports the subject matter of the article. The deleted version of the article fulfills that purpose.
Perhaps the format of the expanded version was at issue. Perhaps the light-hearted approach to certain sections of the article was deemed offensive. Format is easily corrected; elimination of pertinent content is problematic.
In short, the expanded version of the article should be restored and subject to free and open discussion (and revision), in the spirit of Wikipedia, as may be needed.
207.63.134.34 00:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
My explorations of Wiktionary and Wikipedia led me to conclude that the latter is a more appropriate source for substantive information on particular word forms. There are a goodly number of articles in Wikipedia that include extensive lists of words, many of which include definitions, as well. A surprising number of articles in Wikipedia are nothing more than lists of words.
In the case of words ending in -onym, there is an abundance of different words with similar meanings or individual words with contradictory meanings. The persons who coined many of the newer words can be identified. This kind of information was included in my now-reverted revision of the -onym article.
A Wikipedia article is the only truly logical place to identify and explore the causes of such occurrences and provide sufficient information (via definitions and cross-references) to define and evaluate the situation and hopefully sort out the confusion.
Frankly, a comprehensive and annotated list of words is required for a complete understanding of the -onym phenomenon, and this kind of article belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary.
PlaysInPeoria 05:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Hyperonym seems to be missing on this page --toka, 28 May 2007
Article was blanked due to WP:DICDEF, but I think that's misapplied in this case. This is largely a Wikipedia:Lists and facilitates navigation of -onym words, for which there is no category or other navigational tool that I'm aware of at present. Шизомби ( talk) 03:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
The list has been deleted twice now by Wolfkeeper; it's true the AfD outcome does not prohibit changing the article. However, it does not authorize the article to be owned or for consensus to be ignored. How do we go about establishing consensus? If only a handful of people are involved in editing an article, that term always feels a bit forced when there's 11,203,649 named user accounts and who knows how many IPs. Шизомби ( talk) 23:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll reiterate what I suggested at AfD: there should be a small list of items illustrating different types of words ending in -onym. The lead section names these as Historic/Classic, Scientific, Language Games, and Nonce Words. I would recommend antonym, homonym, and pseudonym as Classic types (but I haven't read Sheetz, and don't know if this fits the taxonomy suggested there). For Scientific types, maybe hypernym, hyponym, demonym, and/or exonym (though I think antonym and homonym might fit here, too). I don't understand the difference between the latter two categories; words such as anacronym, backronym and retronym are rather like nonce words, and they're also playful (at least, I've never run into them outside of an implicit joking frame). Cnilep ( talk) 21:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
Putting the list of -onyms together is better, although my reading of Wikipedia:Accessibility#Scrolling_and_collapsible_sections is that show/hide should not be used in article space as this is presently, but rather only in navboxes and infoboxes. The list strikes me as too long to employ either of those options. Шизомби ( talk) 00:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
The problem with "synonym" is that precise synonymy is not as common as words that are simply, but imprecisely, considered interchangable. For instance, it is common to use a brand name to stand in for an entire category of product; this is imprecise usage, but widely understood. Is there any word like " folksynonym" for this type of word - almost, but not quite, a synonym? (I'm not proposing, I'm asking...) 187.143.12.189 ( talk) 15:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Here is a reference guide to words ending in -onym that is more complete than the list in the article. In addition to identifying such words and defining them, this expanded reference guide includes sources keyed to each entry. I believe that, without sources that can be consulted by any reader, a list does not belong in Wikipedia.
I added this guide to the Talk page (rather than the article) in order to encourage discussion prior to editing the article. (Some of the introductory matter appears in the article; I included this information here for ease of reference.)
Article "reference guide" proposal
|
---|
Classes of -Onym WordsIt is not enough merely to name things — we must classify and name the types of names. This onymicon (i.e., lexicon of onyms; a back-formation from synonymicon) serves two purposes. It is, fundamentally, a dictionary of words with the suffix -onym, but it is also an attempt to clarify existing terminology. There are four discernible classes of -onym words: (1) historic, classic, or, for want of better terms, naturally occurring or common words; (2) scientific terminology, particularly occurring in linguistics, onomastics, etc.; (3) language games; and (4) nonce words. Older terms are known to gain new, sometimes contradictory, meanings (e.g., eponym and cryptonym). In many cases, two or more words describe the same phenomenon, but no precedence is discernable (e.g., necronym and penthonym). New words are sometimes created, unnecessarily, the meaning of which duplicate existing terms. Occasionally, new words are formed with little regard to historical principles. This dictionary attempts to identify all such occurrences. If appropriate, alternative word forms are suggested; cross-references are used extensively. A Consideration of Historical PrinciplesOriginally, all words in -onym were formed from Greek root words. Now, however, Latin root words are not unknown, but comprise a very small portion of the main entries herein; the earliest Latin example dates only from 1870. Historically, then, Greek root words are preferred over Latin. A number of main entries derive from other languages, such as English and French, and are all modern (later 20th century, early 21st century) constructions; in almost every instance, there is a preferred Greek or Latin counterpart. A small number of these modern constructions are plays on words or nonce words. The proper form of the suffix is -onym, though there are two legitimate examples where the "o" was replaced by "a" to avoid confusion with similarly spelled terms (ananym and metanym). Further, the "o" should never be replaced by a consonant. There is inevitably an appropriate root word which could have been employed in such constructions (e.g., zoonym instead of faunanym; charactonym instead of characternym). The Onymicon: A Lexicon of -Onym WordsKey: References, in brackets, correspond to the bibliography, “Sources Consulted.” Quotation marks around a main entry denote a word form that is not preferred. cf. = compare. ed. = edition. e.g. = for example. ff. = following. i.e. = that is. q.v., qq.v. = which see.
References / Further ReadingForeword. Specialized word-books employed as finding aids include A. F. Brown's Normal and Reverse English Word List, in 8 volumes (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 1963), Martin Lehnert's Reverse Dictionary of Present-Day English (Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie, 1971),-Ologies & -Isms: A Thematic Dictionary, 2nd ed., edited by Laurence Urdang (Detroit: Gale Research Company, 1981).
Sources Consulted
|
Thank you for your consideration. PlaysInPeoria ( talk) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Onomonym: one of those words ending in -onym? Just suggesting.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.202.34 ( talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)