Talk:Transparency (linguistic)

message: Semantic transparency is a descriptive phrase that has been used in linguistics to describe endocentric compounds. Endocentric compound words are those whose whole meaning can be figured out by an analysis of its parts or "morphemes". An example of an endocentric compound is the word "car-wash". By contrast, some compound words are exocentric, meaning their whole meaning cannot be established by an analysis of parts; for example, the word "hogwash". Exocentric words are also known as semantically opaque.
==Descriptive== 
Another mode of linguistic transparency is the descriptive.  Language wholes and parts, themes and arguments, ought to but often don't, convey adequate language imagery, importances and understood semantics. Unknown languages, exotic designs, nonsense, rejected arguments and even commonplaces, language use can be opaque and deflect understanding, unless surmounted by the receiver.
Descriptive linguistic transparency denotes a 'structural' description of speech examples.  Many compound words are endocentric and their meaning can be determined by analysis of parts or morphemes. An endocentric compound shows its end on center, a sense conforming to its Greek origins. Two examples, "lion-house" and "car-wash" can be seen as endocentric.  Their meaning is further illustrated by structural description (e.g., the first noun modifies the second noun) or deeper syntax.  All parts of speech can work in compounding words, and are apparently susceptible to copyright claims.
Many compound words and phrases are exocentric (and not transparent). In this case, their meaning is not easily discernable.
Exocentric compounds are out of center (from Greek exo centron). 
For example, the word "hogwash" [enUS] is now exocentric, but historically came from a metaphor, absorbed bullshit, and then blended. It is similar in this sense to an idiom.  A new speaker of English wouldn't at first realize that "hogwash" now refers to human rhetorical waste as its origin in pig shit soil water is increasingly forgotten.
Sensibly perhaps, both the words "exocentric" and "endocentric" are themselves endocentric.
Idioms and exocentric words are semantically opaque due to buried internal structure, or forgotten origins.  The use of jargon also acts contrary to clear description and linguistic transparency by making established domains of language look opaque to non-users.
Purposeful use of jargon may serve normative or demographic-fitting goals.
=== notes ===
just looking to find/pretend a grace that'll stick to the wall. 
:Welcome! Feel free to add your proposed edits onto the article page. There's no little thing that can't be fixed. 
:My observations: I would take the first paragraph of your new edit and put it later on, because it seems to be explaining the relevance of descriptive semantic transparency prior to an explanation of what the phrase means (which is confusing to the reader). And the first sentence of what is presently the second paragraph doesn't tie in well enough with the rest of the second paragraph. Also the phrase (shows from the outside) ought to be explained for what it is, an explanation of the etymology of the word. Lucidish
 [category: namespace=linguistic transparency, linguistics, semantics, syntax, ...]
 [disambig: opacity, transparency] are in a mess
 [need conformance with the 'stubs': endocentric, exocentric]
I cannot make any sense of the new edits provided here. Lucidish
: I apologize. This a personal note pointing to related messes and needed work.  The entry generally has to be situated better.
: The entry connects to more convolutions than I expected.  Tell me more. Where else is the text not lucidish? - ken(t) Aug 16, 2005.
::No need to apologize. I'm just saying I can't understand your notes. 
::It's easier for me to show than to tell what my problems are.
::Another mode of linguistic transparency is the descriptive. Language wholes and parts, themes and arguments, Utterances ought to -- but often don't -- convey adequate language imagery, importances and understood semantics meanings in an understandable way. For instance, unknown languages, exotic designs, and nonsense rejected arguments and even commonplaces, language use can be opaque and deflect understanding, unless surmounted by the receiver. (All of this is general information, more fitting for the article's introduction than for an intro to descriptive linguistic transparency.)''
::Descriptive linguistic transparency denotes describes a 'structural' description of speech examples examples of language that have a definite and obvious structure. For example, many compound words (called endocentric) have and their meanings that can be determined by analysis of their parts (or morphemes). An endocentric compound shows its end on center, a sense conforming to its Greek origins. Two examples, "lion-house" and "car-wash" can be seen as endocentric. Their meaning is further illustrated determined by structural description (e.g., the first noun modifies the second noun) or deeper syntax. All parts of speech can work in compounding words, and are apparently susceptible to copyright claims. Endocentric compounds are therefore linguistically transparent in a descriptive way.
::By contrast, many compound words and phrases are exocentric (and so, not transparent). In this case, Their meaning is not easily discernable. Exocentric compounds are out of center (from Greek exo centron). For example, the word "hogwash" [enUS] is now exocentric, but historically came from a metaphor, absorbed bullshit, and then blended. It is similar in this sense to an idiom. A new speaker of English wouldn't at first realize that "hogwash" now refers to human rhetorical waste as its origin in pig shit soil water is increasingly forgotten. (All metaphors are opaque in this sense.) Idioms and exocentric words are semantically opaque due to buried internal structure, or forgotten origins. 
::The use of jargon also acts contrary to clear description and linguistic transparency by making established domains of language look opaque to non-users.Purposeful use of jargon may serve normative or demographic-fitting goals. (These don't apply to the descriptive sense, just the normative one)''
::Lucidish 03:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Descriptive, current 

message: just looking to find/pretend a grace that'll stick to the wall. 
:Welcome! Feel free to add your proposed edits onto the article page. There's no little thing that can't be fixed. 
:My observations: I would take the first paragraph of your new edit and put it later on, because it seems to be explaining the relevance of descriptive semantic transparency prior to an explanation of what the phrase means (which is confusing to the reader). And the first sentence of what is presently the second paragraph doesn't tie in well enough with the rest of the second paragraph. Also the phrase (shows from the outside) ought to be explained for what it is, an explanation of the etymology of the word. Lucidish
 [category: namespace=linguistic transparency, linguistics, semantics, syntax, ...]
 [disambig: opacity, transparency] are in a mess
 [need conformance with the 'stubs': endocentric, exocentric]
I cannot make any sense of the new edits provided here. Lucidish
: I apologize. This a personal note pointing to related messes and needed work.  The entry generally has to be situated better.
: The entry connects to more convolutions than I expected.  Tell me more. Where else is the text not lucidish? - ken(t) Aug 16, 2005.
::No need to apologize. I'm just saying I can't understand your notes. 
::It's easier for me to show than to tell what my problems are.
::Another mode of linguistic transparency is the descriptive. Language wholes and parts, themes and arguments, Utterances ought to -- but often don't -- convey adequate language imagery, importances and understood semantics meanings in an understandable way. For instance, unknown languages, exotic designs, and nonsense rejected arguments and even commonplaces, language use can be opaque and deflect understanding, unless surmounted by the receiver. (All of this is general information, more fitting for the article's introduction than for an intro to descriptive linguistic transparency.)''
::Descriptive linguistic transparency denotes describes a 'structural' description of speech examples examples of language that have a definite and obvious structure. For example, many compound words (called endocentric) have and their meanings that can be determined by analysis of their parts (or morphemes). An endocentric compound shows its end on center, a sense conforming to its Greek origins. Two examples, "lion-house" and "car-wash" can be seen as endocentric. Their meaning is further illustrated determined by structural description (e.g., the first noun modifies the second noun) or deeper syntax. All parts of speech can work in compounding words, and are apparently susceptible to copyright claims. Endocentric compounds are therefore linguistically transparent in a descriptive way.
::By contrast, many compound words and phrases are exocentric (and so, not transparent). In this case, Their meaning is not easily discernable. Exocentric compounds are out of center (from Greek exo centron). For example, the word "hogwash" [enUS] is now exocentric, but historically came from a metaphor, absorbed bullshit, and then blended. It is similar in this sense to an idiom. A new speaker of English wouldn't at first realize that "hogwash" now refers to human rhetorical waste as its origin in pig shit soil water is increasingly forgotten. (All metaphors are opaque in this sense.) Idioms and exocentric words are semantically opaque due to buried internal structure, or forgotten origins. 
::The use of jargon also acts contrary to clear description and linguistic transparency by making established domains of language look opaque to non-users.Purposeful use of jargon may serve normative or demographic-fitting goals. (These don't apply to the descriptive sense, just the normative one)''
::Lucidish 03:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  notes