Talk:-onym
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: | |||||||||||
|
Backronym Concern
[edit]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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Doesn't this belong at -nym?
[edit]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)
- 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)
Hominids, Canines, and Dryads?
[edit]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)
- I don't know, we like to call those "patronyms" in Classics. Tsunomaru 02:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
A person named for their characteristics
[edit]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?
[edit]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)
- Doesn't agree with conventions of English borrowing from Latin. The Latin root of any English "-pone" or "-posit" word is pono, ponere, posui, positus. English likes to take the imperfective stem ("pon-") and the passive perfective stem ("posit-") to build its own words; using only part of a stem is a faux pas. Any English word built from "oppono" would have to include an unbroken "oppon-" or "opposit-". Now, I don't know nearly as much about Greek etymologies as Latin etymologies, but I suppose something like "antithetonym" would work. Tsunomaru 02:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Oronym?
[edit]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
[edit]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?
[edit]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)
Word Lists
[edit]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 missing ?
[edit]Hyperonym seems to be missing on this page --toka, 28 May 2007
WP is not a dictionary
[edit]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)
- See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linguistics#Prithee for background. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Aha. Thank you. Шизомби (talk) 12:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, the list is important to the article. A list of examples of -onyms is needed to illustrate the various points made in the introduction and the sections following it. After all Lists does say: "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information", and without this list readers would be left to their own divices as what is exactly is meant. So, the guidelines agree why we should have the list.
- There is, however, one point I should like to make: why not reorganize the list somewhat on the lines of those suggested by the 1988 Scheetz study, into several classes as described in the section referring to it. I don't know whether the editor who created this section still can lay their hands on the publication, but I think it would give further substantiation to the list. Whatever happens, we should keep it. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am copying this into Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/-onym. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Aha. Thank you. Шизомби (talk) 12:48, 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 haven't deleted it, I've added it to the category that includes the list of words ending in 'ing'.- Wolfkeeper 23:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I'm seeing a deletion of the list, as I said[3] but not an addition of a category. Do you mean you are in the process of adding a [Category:-onym words] or something like to all such words? Шизомби (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
- I haven't deleted it, I've added it to the category that includes the list of words ending in 'ing'.- Wolfkeeper 23:11, 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)
- I'm still inclined to believe that as long as there are multiple encyclopedia article on -onym words that it makes sense to have a page facilitating navigation between them, and -onym seems as logical a place as any. Whether it be an Index page, or List, or Glossary, or disambig: whatever. It seems, however, that I may have to develop the argument for that position further in order to sway anyone. Additionally, I remain unclear by what was meant by "I haven't deleted it, I've added it to the category that includes the list of words ending in 'ing'." above. Шизомби (talk) 21:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
- @ Шизомби: Wolfkeeper is talking of the category of things not included in Wikipedia. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I was trying to AGF and now you spoiled it. :-} Шизомби (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- Since navigation pages are not considered encyclopedic article topics you've just admitted that this is not an encyclopedic topic.- Wolfkeeper 01:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- No. Please stop. Шизомби (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have only searched for retronym so far, but it doesn't look to difficult to substantiate it and shouldn't be much of a problem concerning Cnilep's query as to the others words. See [4]
- As for Wolfkeeper's reply, it all depends what you mean by "navigation pages". Many things can be navigation pages. The problem really is whether a list properly cross-referenced reflects the type of class each word refers to, but since we don't know exactly into which classes Scheetz separates each word, we are a bit stumped as to do this properly. Given Scheetz' "taxonomy" it would make perfect sense to raise the mere list to a proper list subdivided into its classes, and we would have a source into the bargain which would be right to be there. That also reflects the citation in Wikipedia:Lists under "Defintion Lists" and various others or the citation "Lists are commonly used in Wikipedia to organize information". Dieter Simon (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Dieter Simon (talk)
- No. Please stop. Шизомби (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
show/hide
[edit]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)
- I agree with you, if a list is worthwhile in a Wikipedia article it should be shown without readers having to hunt around to find it. As to my reasons why we should keep the list, see the previous section when I have written it. Dieter Simon (talk) 00:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed. I've removed the hiding functionality. -- Quiddity (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Folksynonym
[edit]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)
A Descriptive and Prescriptive Onymicon
[edit]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 Words[edit]It 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 Principles[edit]Originally, 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 Words[edit]Key: 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 Reading[edit]Foreword. 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[edit]
|
Thank you for your consideration. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
- I prefer the revision to the original. Terms that are still missing include: :: aconsonym
- anepronym
- apostonym
- astronym
- autoglossonym
- chrononym
- cohyponym
- desynonym
- endonym
- ergonym
- genonym
- geonym
- glossonym
- hiernym
- hypocoronym
- morphonym
- netcronym
- numeronym
- odonym
- orthonym
- paranym
- pertainym
- petronym
- poecilonym (spelling error)
- polypseudonym
- pseudoeponym
- pteronym
- textonym
- theronym
- xenonym
- Mjespuiva (talk) 01:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Onomonym?
[edit]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)