An unintuitive conception of words

[fast]

A longer thread title might read, “A word with different definitions vs a completely different word spelled identically with different definitions.”

If we look at a dictionary entry, we typically find a word with alternative definitions. It’s the very same word with different meanings.

However, with some words, the following entry may misleadingly be the very same word that may also have alternate definitions.

Consider the word, “tick”. That is a word. It has four letters, starts with a ‘t’, ends with a ‘k’, and has ‘ic’ in the middle. It’s spelled ‘t’, ‘i’, ‘c’ ‘k’.

It’s my contention that each entry is a different word—not the same same word with what may or may not have a list of varying definitions. Under a single entry, yes, each definition is a separate and different definition for the very same word, but a completely different entry with definitions are not yet more definitions for the same word but for a different word—even if spelled identically.

 

[Treedbear]

Sound's like a ticklish question.

 

[fast]

If you write down a word on your left hand, and if you write down a word on your right hand, then the word written down on your left hand may (or may not) be the same word as written down on your right hand.

If it so happens that the word written down on your left hand matches exactly to the word written down on your right hand, then it is still the case that the word written down on your left hand is not the same word as written down on your right hand.

How can that be the case?

It depends on the relatedness of the denotation.

Consider the different definitions for the word, “green” when used to describe color:
Definition 1a, 1b, 1c etc
That’s three different definitions for the very same word

Consider the different definitions for the word, “green” when used to describe freshness:
Definition 2a, 2b, 2c etc
That’s three different definitions for the very same word

If the word written down on the left hand is green and denotes 1a, and if the word written down on the right hand denotes 1b, then the word on the left hand is the same word as written down on the right hand.

However, if the word written down on the left hand denotes 1a, and of the word written down on the right hand denotes 2a, then although “green” is both on the left hand and right hand, they are different words despite identical spelling.

 

[Bomb#20]

What's a word?

This is actually a tricky linguistic question. In practice in English we treat it as a bunch of letters with no spaces between them. But Latin has words too and the Romans wrote without spaces between them. So how do you tell when one word starts and another ends? Look at all those Latin words that end with "us". Is that a word, or is it a suffix? We normally call it a suffix, and when we write Latin, unlike the Romans we write "us" with no space before it but a space after it. It's a grammatical case marker -- it means "this is the subject of the sentence." Japanese uses "wa" for the same purpose, but for some reason we call that a word and we write it with a space before it as well as after it.

So in quick answer to your "How can that be the case?" question, in my experience dictionaries usually have a separate entry for a word spelled the same way when there are two different etymologies -- i.e., there used to be two words spelled/pronounced differently, but the words evolved into looking the same. But not always. And there might be better criteria than that...

 

[untermensche]

What's a word?

Something in the mind not in the world.

The mind makes sense of these symbols on the screen.

Without the mind they have no meaning.

And they only have meaning in a mind. They only exist as a word in a mind.

 

[Tharmas]

Then there are those words that are spelt the same and pronounced the same but have diametrically opposite definitions.

An example is cleave: to split apart

and

cleave: to stick with, stick together.

 

[fast]

But is it proper to regard the separate entry as being in fact a different word?

While I might argue that the separate entry is a different word, another might argue that it’s the same word yet with different meanings and etymologies.

Without a trusted and accepted convention-dependent basis for favoring one or the other, I’m afraid the leg I’m standing on is shaky weak. It reminds me of the mistake others make when failing to differentiate between a referring term that fails to refer and a nonreferring term. It takes a convention being in place to have a stronger foundation for an argument to have credence.

Even a written word exceeds the scope of what it means to be a word before writing which would have begged the question prior to acceptance that a word written is a word; it would have been more of a description of something on an entirely different metaphysical plane. It would have been like arguing that a statue of a cat is a kind of cat. Frozen water isn’t truly water if necessarily, water is liquid; instead, it’s a description of what has happened to water. Not a different state of water but rather a different state of H2O. Usage of terms over time and conventions accepted have a way of turning things topsy turvey. Today, it would be ridiculous to deny that words appear on pages. That words can be regarded as if belonging to different planes of existence (verbalized, written, thought, idealized) goes to show that we have allowed ‘getting our points across’ to play a major role in the ever increasing scope and even accepted breadth of what can be considered words.

I believe we should be able to pin down what is correct or incorrect—not as if there is some cosmic absolute but rather a convention-dependent truth. People are so quick to deny what an expert in the field says, and it’s on the flimsy basis of there being an arbitrary heritage.

If we take all we know from experts in the field, I’d be happy to not defend my contention that words identically spelled are contingently the same—it depends, I say.

 

[DBT]

What are words if not a collection of noises/sounds, each sound assigned a meaning by a set of people according to the objects or ideas that a word/sound represents within a given context, a symbolic consensus by a number of people relating to the language they happen to speak?

 

[untermensche]

What are words if not a collection of noises/sounds, each sound assigned a meaning by a set of people according to the objects or ideas that a word/sound represents within a given context, a symbolic consensus by a number of people relating to the language they happen to speak?

They exist as conceptual entities in the mind.

They exist nowhere but the mind.

 

[fast]

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/tick

Notice the second usage under tick\(1\)

A regular short, sharp sound, especially that made by a clock or watch.

Notice the third usage under tick\(1\)

The smallest recognized amount by which a price of a security or future may fluctuate.

Notice the first usage under tick\(2\)

A parasitic arachnid which attaches itself to the skin of a terrestrial vertebrate from which it sucks blood, leaving the host when sated. Some species transmit diseases, including tularaemia and Lyme disease.

Now, I’m going to list the corresponding words without superscript differentiations along with shortened versions of the definition; also, I’m listing them in proposition format:

P1: Tick - sharp sound
P2: Tick - smallest price increment
P3: Tick - parasitic arachnid

Some of you may look and think you are seeing the word “Tick” listed three times. You may be correct, however, what I’m suggesting is that things (in this instance) aren’t as they seem.

I don’t see one word three times. What I see are two words—one listed twice and one listed once. The closest analogy would be a type, token distinction

B O B

How many letters do you see? One may say three: ‘B’, ‘O’, and ‘B’ while another may say two ‘B’ and ‘O’.

The reason I see two words is traced back to the superscript entries.

While this definition:

A regular short, sharp sound, especially that made by a clock or watch.

And this definition:

The smallest recognized amount by which a price of a security or future may fluctuate.

Are in fact two different definitions for the very same word, this definition:

A parasitic arachnid which attaches itself to the skin of a terrestrial vertebrate from which it sucks blood, leaving the host when sated. Some species transmit diseases, including tularaemia and Lyme disease

Belongs to a completely different word. Yes, they are spelled the same, but that is inconsequential due the fact they are not apart of the same entry, and that matters, and there’s a reason it matters. Different entries are different words. No, not the same word listed again but genuinely different words.

Does anyone buy that? I’m not sold on it, but what say y’all?

 

[DBT]

If the meaning is entirely different, it is a different word regardless of spelling. As it is the context in which a word is used that defines its meaning in that instance, it is the meaning in that instance that makes it a different word.

 

[fast]

But P1 and P2 is an example of the very same word having different meanings.

 

[Bronzeage]

If a particular language is the product of an isolated group of people, and this group never meets other people with a different language, we might not find word which sound the same, yet have different meanings. All modern languages, especially languages spoken today in the western hemisphere have merged time after time. It's inevitable that word sounds will be duplicated. There will even be cases where words change meaning over time in one language, but remains the same in another.

 

[fast]

Even within a situation when full context is given, it can be difficult to tell whether an ambiguity is a function of conflating the meaning of a word with either an alternate meaning of the same word or a completely different yet identically spelled word. That words have different definitions isn’t enough to tell.

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/fast

There are multiple definitions of “fast” (in the first entry alone) that serve as examples of a single word having multiple meanings, yet there’s another entry that too has a different definition yet serves not of such an example.

That’s why I said early on that it seems to have something to do with relatedness, but honing in on even a stark contrast with word usage isn’t enough to delineate between what entry a definition should belong.

 

[DBT]

But P1 and P2 is an example of the very same word having different meanings.

Yes, of course, that is what I meant about context defining the word in that instance of usage. Without context, the word may mean a number of things. When given context, the word is resolved into whatever meaning the context happens to define in that instance.

The word meaning is resolved by usage...kind of like the quantum wave function of linguistics, haha.

 

[steve_bank]

Definition of intuitive


1a : known or perceived by intuition : directly apprehended
//had an intuitive awareness of his sister's feelings

b : knowable by intuition
//intuitive truths

c : based on or agreeing with intuition
//intuitive responses


Definition of intuition


1 : quick and ready insight


2a : immediate apprehension or cognition

b : knowledge or conviction gained by intuition

adjective


1 perceiving directly by intuition without rational thought, as a person or the mind.

2 perceived by, resulting from, or involving intuition:
intuitive knowledge.

3 having or possessing intuition:
an intuitive person.

4 capable of being perceived or known by intuition.

5 easy to understand or operate without explicit instruction:


concept noun


con·​cept | \ ˈkän-ˌsept

\


Definition of concept (Entry 1 of 2)




1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion


2 : an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
//the basic concepts of psychology

//the concept of gravity



concept
adjective



Definition of concept (Entry 2 of 2)




1 : organized around a main idea or theme
//a concept album


2 : created to illustrate a concept
//a concept car


word noun


\ ˈwərd

\


Definition of word (Entry 1 of 2)


1a(1) : a speech sound or series of speech sounds that symbolizes and communicates a meaning usually without being divisible into smaller units capable of independent use

(2) : the entire set of linguistic forms produced by combining a single base with various inflectional elements without change in the part of speech elements



b(1) : a written or printed character or combination of characters representing a spoken word
//the number of words to a line





— Erma Bombeck

(2) : any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark


2a : a brief remark or conversation
//would like to have a word with you

b : something that is said

c words plural




(1) : talk, discourse
//putting one's feelings into words

(2) : the text of a vocal musical composition


3 : order, command
//don't move till I give the word


4a : news, information
//sent word that he would be late

b : rumor


5 : promise, declaration
//kept her word


6 : a quarrelsome utterance or conversation —usually used in plural
//they had wor

An unintuitive conception of words

As I interpret the title:

Conceived in a not quick and ready insight regarding any segment of written or printed discourse ordinarily appearing between spaces or between a space and a punctuation mark.

This should clarify things.

 

[Speakpigeon]

A longer thread title might read, “A word with different definitions vs a completely different word spelled identically with different definitions.”

If we look at a dictionary entry, we typically find a word with alternative definitions. It’s the very same word with different meanings.

However, with some words, the following entry may misleadingly be the very same word that may also have alternate definitions.

Consider the word, “tick”. That is a word. It has four letters, starts with a ‘t’, ends with a ‘k’, and has ‘ic’ in the middle. It’s spelled ‘t’, ‘i’, ‘c’ ‘k’.

It’s my contention that each entry is a different word—not the same same word with what may or may not have a list of varying definitions. Under a single entry, yes, each definition is a separate and different definition for the very same word, but a completely different entry with definitions are not yet more definitions for the same word but for a different word—even if spelled identically.

Surely, dictionaries should have the last word on this vexed question of what is a word:

Word
1. A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolises and communicates a meaning

So a word is the physical sound coming to your physical ear or the physical mark you see with your eyes on a physical piece paper.

If these words were not the physical marks on your screens, how could you all read this?

Ask semioticians...

Semiotics
1. (Linguistics) the study of signs and symbols, esp. the relations between written or spoken signs and their referents in the physical world or the world of ideas.

And so, what's a sign?

Here it is:

Sign.
1. Something that suggests the presence or existence of a fact, condition, or quality: A high temperature is a sign of fever.
2.
a. An act or gesture used to convey an idea, a desire, information, or a command: gave the go-ahead sign. See Synonyms at gesture.
b. Sign language.
3.
a. A displayed structure bearing lettering or symbols, used to identify or advertise a place of business: a motel with a flashing neon sign outside.
b. A posted notice bearing a designation, direction, or command: an EXIT sign above a door; a traffic sign.
4. A conventional figure or device that stands for a word, phrase, or operation; a symbol, as in mathematics or in musical notation.
5. pl. sign An indicator, such as a dropping or footprint, of the trail of an animal: looking for deer sign.
6. A trace or vestige: no sign of life.

Notice how all examples of signs here are physical things: high temperature, act, gesture, a structure, flashing neon sign, figure, device, dropping, footprint, trail, trace, vestige...

Same for "symbol":

Symbol
1.
a. Something that represents something else by association, resemblance, or convention, especially a material object used to represent something invisible: The lamb is a symbol of innocence.
b. An instance that typifies a broader pattern or situation: His striking out to end the rally was a symbol of everything that had gone wrong with the team over the past month.
2. A printed or written sign used to represent an operation, element, quantity, quality, or relation, as in mathematics or music.

This is all in the dictionary. The whole universe is there.

So, it seems that a word is just the blotch on the surface of things. And nothing else...

This is why we can say that the word (singular) "identity" have many different senses:

identity
1. the state of having unique identifying characteristics held by no other person or thing
2. the individual characteristics by which a person or thing is recognized
3. Also called: numerical identity the property of being one and the same individual: his loss of memory did not affect his identity.
4. Also called: qualitative identity the state of being the same in nature, quality, etc: they were linked by the identity of their tastes.
5. the state of being the same as a person or thing described or claimed: the identity of the stolen goods has not yet been established.
6. identification of oneself as: moving to London destroyed his Welsh identity.
7. (Logic) logic
a. that relation that holds only between any entity and itself
b. an assertion that that relation holds, as Cicero is Tully
8. (Mathematics) maths
a. an equation that is valid for all values of its variables, as in (x – y)(x + y) = x2 – y2. Often denoted by the symbol ≡
b. Also called: identity element a member of a set that when operating on another member, x, produces that member x: the identity for multiplication of numbers is 1 since x.1 = 1.x = x.
9. informal Austral and NZ a well-known person, esp in a specified locality; figure (esp in the phrase an old identity)

The word "identity", and not the words spelt "identity".

That's how the brain does it, anyway.

You have a point, of course. It's very tempting to see a word as being defined by its definition in the dictionary. Different definition ergo different words. But dictionaries don't define words. They define the meanings.:

Definition
a. A statement of the meaning of a word, phrase, or term, as in a dictionary entry.

That's how dictionaries work and dictionaries are the place where the meaning of the word "word" is defined.
EB

 

[steve_bank]

Our brains automatically sifts through context and brings to mind a coherent interpretation of meaning and intent. It is probably a survival mechanism that evolved.

Fight Or Flight. Creatures including humans when surprised automatically access sounds, motion, and surroundings to determine if there is a threat.

We could not function id we had to evaluate all words in depth for meaning and intent. We go by ques.

 

[Jokodo]

A longer thread title might read, “A word with different definitions vs a completely different word spelled identically with different definitions.”

If we look at a dictionary entry, we typically find a word with alternative definitions. It’s the very same word with different meanings.

However, with some words, the following entry may misleadingly be the very same word that may also have alternate definitions.

Consider the word, “tick”. That is a word. It has four letters, starts with a ‘t’, ends with a ‘k’, and has ‘ic’ in the middle. It’s spelled ‘t’, ‘i’, ‘c’ ‘k’.

It’s my contention that each entry is a different word—not the same same word with what may or may not have a list of varying definitions. Under a single entry, yes, each definition is a separate and different definition for the very same word, but a completely different entry with definitions are not yet more definitions for the same word but for a different word—even if spelled identically.

I think what you're asking for is lexeme, not word. A word in the technical sense is a syntactic atom, though it may o r may not be morphologically complex.

For example, in English the "saxon genitive" possesive marker '’s' is arguably a word: You can, and in some cases have to separate it from the element it relates to, such as in "The king of Spain's summer palace", which is a palace belonging to the king, not to Spain, or have it apply to relate to multiple elements in the sentence, as in "The king and (the) queen's wedding", which is not merely the queen's. The plural marker, on the other hand, doesn't behave like this: You cannot say "king and queens" to mean "kings and queens", or even "pairs we would individually refer to as 'king and queen'", that is, as applying the semantics of PLURAL to the meaning of the phrase "king and queen".

What is and what isn't a word in this sense is of course language specific: In German, the summer palace would have to be "der Sommerpalast des Königs von Spanien", no option to say "[König von Spanien]-s" - here, the possessive marker is a suffix, not a word.*

In some modern languages, spelling (with or without a space) can be an indicator of wordhood, but never a very reliable one: Compare "I believe they under- rather than overstated the problem", where the "under" of "understate" is stranded by eliding "state", suggesting that they both word-like characteristics. Google similarly finds me examples of an "underappreciated and -valued skill" and similar. This doesn't work for all prefixes, e. g. "unknown and -identifiable" or "un- rather than relock the door" don't make much sense, and thethereir might even be borderline cases (try "mis-" - as a non-native speaker, I refrain from judging examples like "mis- rather than re-interpreting the piece" or "misunderstood and -diagnosed", though I would guess it's better than with "un-" but nowhere near as good as with "under-").

That's for words as a morphosyntactic category. But I guess lexemes is what you really want to discuss.

* ETA: To be more precise: this is just the German possessive/genitive in post-nominal position, i.e. literally translated "the summer palace the(genitive ending) king's(genitive ending) of Spain". German does have a pre-nominal "genitive", although more restricted than the post-nominal one, which appears to actively hide from us whether it is or isn't a word: Unlike the post-nominal genitive, which has some irregular forms, it's always the same form ("s") and occurs even on nouns that wouldn't otherwise inflect for genitive, which makes it somewhat less suffix-like; on the other hand, it never occurs on anything that isn't the head noun of the possessor phrase; indeed, it doesn't like complex noun phrases at all; it's almost as if it refused to appear in any context that might let us determine whether it is or isn't a word.

 

[Jokodo]

We normally call it a suffix, and when we write Latin, unlike the Romans we write "us" with no space before it but a space after it. It's a grammatical case marker -- it means "this is the subject of the sentence." Japanese uses "wa" for the same purpose, but for some reason we call that a word and we write it with a space before it as well as after it.

The reason might be that it actually behaves like a word: I wouldn't know enough Japanese to tell for sure, but I believe it is used as a phrase marker only occurring once after the complete subject noun phrase however much structure that one may have - analogous to the "saxon genitive" but quite unlike Latin case markers that would obligatorily repeat when the subject is a conjunction, or even just a phrase with two parallel nouns like "princeps episcopus" (prince bishop).