Talk:Homonym

message: It is too dialectical.  Nohat, it may be reduced when you speak naturally, but it sure isn't when I speak naturally. Csernica 19:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not dialectical. There are no dialects that have distinct rules for the reduction of function words. Sociolects, perhaps, with reduction extremely mildly marked in the very highest acrolect. And it's certainly the case that the amount of reduction is in free variation, depending on speed of speech or social situation, but there are no dialects that differ on whether or not to ever takes a reduced form. There is no dialect where "to" always has a full vowel. Nohat 07:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The problem is that English education causes people to lose the ability to speak naturally while at the same time being aware of their speech. For many people, when they think about the words, the spelling will influence the pronunciation in such a way that the way they pronounce it is inherently unnatural. In other words, when you're thinking about the sounds of the words you're saying (linguists call this "careful speech"), then the sounds actually change and the result is very different from what is called "normal speech". In normal speech, when to is an ordinary function word, not stressed or used contrastively, then it is always pronounced with schwa unless it comes before a vowel or at the end of the sentence. Here it is not used to contrast with any other words in the sentence, it comes before a consonant, and is not sentence final, so it is pronounced with schwa. If you are pronouncing it with a full vowel, you are probably speaking with "careful speech" and giving the word sentence stress or contrastive stress: "to much to do in two days". However, the unmarked reading for the sentence is to not give any stress at all to the word "to". This is not a dialectical variation, but simply an idiosyncrasy that results from thinking about what you're saying. Nohat 09:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reduced "to" 

message: I removed the second sentence from:
:The National Puzzlers' League calls homographs heteronyms.  This term is particularly appropriate where the homograph, such as cleave, has two opposite meanings, "to split" and "to cling close".
Heteronyms are homographs that are not also homophones.  Both meanings of cleave are spelledpronounced the same way, thus it is not an appropriate example.  JeremyStein 18:23, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you meant to point out that both meanings are pronounced the same way?  The two different meanings of "close" are a better example, perhaps. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thank you.  The two meanings of "close" would be a good example of a heteronym, but they aren't antonyms, so I still see no use for that sentence.  JeremyStein 14:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Cleave is both a homonym and an auto-antonym (q.v.) --Jmptdc 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleave is not a heteronym 

message: Wouldn't it be better to have a "two, too, to" example in the intro? From the existing intro, it's not clear to me that "homonym" includes same-sound-different-spelling groups, as I don't think of those as the "same word". Thanks, William Pietri 16:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another intro example 

message: You have just invented these, haven't you? We cannot do our own research nor can we coin new words in Wikipedia. We can only cite what we find what has been created elsewhere. See Wikipedia: What wikipedia is not.  Dieter Simon 01:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not keep adding your item about bihomonyms, trihomonyms and polyhomonyms, without adding also suitable source materials and citations, otherwise we must assume these are your own inventions and we will regard them to be vandalism, and will automatically remove them. Dieter Simon 23:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Bihomonyms, trihomonyms and polyhomonyms

message: Should auto-antonym</B> be added to the list of Variants and sub-types?  Auto-antonyms are a particularly provocative and entertaining sub-type of homograph/homophone.  Regrettably, adding this sub-type here would necessitate inventing an awkward noun, <B>auto-antonymy</B>.  At the very least, shouldn't there be a cross-reference to the Wiki entry on auto-antonym? 4granite 23:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Auto-antonyms

message: a river bank, a savings bank, a bank of switches, and a bank shot in pool
In these four contexts, the word bank, though it possesses various meanings, do all derive from the same origin. A bank was a variant of a bench (the original Italian word banco preserves both meanings): the risen side of a river is a bank (=bench) in that it can be stood or rested upon; moneylenders and financiers in Italy sat at a banco; an array of switches is set out on a board (=table) or bank (=bench); and a bank shot is one where the ball banks (hits off) the cushion (to bank: to lean or diverge, as if hitting or sliding off a bench).
Nuttyskin (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Bank

message: The table that lists the sameness and difference of the spelling, sound and meaning does not match the definitions in the near-by writing, specifically, the table states that homonyms are spelled differently, while the definition of a homonym states that it is both spelled and sound the same but with different meanings. Oliana (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Oliana, you have noticed our 'deliberate mistake'. Have reverted "homonym". Dieter Simon (talk) 23:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table contradictions 

message: The article is about Homonymy in general, so shouldn't it be moved to "Homonymy"? "Homonym", as a single instance, doesn't seem as encycopedic for an article title? Who agrees in this instance? 4.255.54.96 (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet the first reference work I consulted, "The Oxford Companion to the English Language", editor Tom McArther, 1992, gives Homonym and not Homonymy with reference to the actual word rather than the concept ("one of two or more words that are identical in sound or spelling but different in meaning"). It is not so much the "single instance", as you call it, but whether you are highlighting the word or not. Dieter Simon (talk) 22:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  move to "Homonymy"? 

message: The definitions "bow: a device used to play a violin" and "bow: a weapon used to shoot arrows" are clearly the same meaning: a string attached to a bent stick. These do not pass the test of "spelled and sound the same but mean different things." Furthermore the string is not part of the "bow" --- it has it's own word "bowstring". In this manner the use of "bow" as in "bow legged" is also exactly the same --- long and curved --- as those two prior meanings. This reasoning can also be applied to "bow" meaning the prow of a boat and "bow" meaning to "curve ones body downwards," even though that is generally pronounced differently.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.146.224.18 (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The text talks about "bow" also having "several related but distinct meanings" (my italics), and implies that the list is knowingly including "polysemous" meanings such as the ones you have pointed out. 81.151.35.79 (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bow ad nauseam 

message: first my name is mohamed iam somali if i participate this discussion iam very weakable  person according to speaking english i want to give me ahelpfull hand as to speahk the language fluently  donot surprise me iam not talker good by.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.220.51.2 (talk) 09:14, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  spectagle 

message: Couldn't "Polish" capitalized still mean to make shiny when occurring at the beginning of a sentence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.250.53.165 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, in the following sentence, for xample. "Polish keeps the table shiny". Why, is there a query? Dieter Simon (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Polish 

message: Wikitable is covering part of the text, and seems to have done so for some time. Might this have something to do with my using Vector (default)? Maybe other skins might be perfectly OK. Dieter Simon (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikitable is covering text 

message: Does anybody know how many of these there are? Hundreds? Thousands? It would be an interesting encyclopedic fact to include here if it could be sourced. What about other languages? Are we unlucky, or is English much like most other languages in this respect? Another thought for expansion if the research exists. If not, is this a PhD idea for someone? --Nigelj (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  How many homonyms in English? 

message: I don't think this makes sense: "In non-technical contexts, the term "homonym" may be used (somewhat confusingly) to refer to words that are either homographs or homophones.[1] In this looser sense, the words row (propel with oars) and row (argument) are considered homonyms".
Aren't row and row true homonyms? Why is it in a "looser sense."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.12.253 (talk) 18:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Because they are pronounced differently. 86.160.217.39 (talk) 02:35, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think the example is unclear, since the two words are clearly homographs (thus making them homonyms in the looser sense) but some-one reading this might think that they are pronounced the same, though they aren't (at least in American English, which is what is mentioned in the comparison).  Let's get a better example.Kdammers (talk) 03:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't row (propel with oars) and row (argument) true homonyms? 

message: I made the executive decision to get rid of the article's two outside links: one to a for-profit educational materials company's sales page, which had no information on the subject at hand; the other to the Online Etymology Dictionary entry for "fluke." One is blatant advertising, the other unhelpful. Treeemont (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletion of external links

message: This article opens with the technical linguistic definition of "same spelling and same pronunciation", explaining this at length before giving the commonplace definition of "same spelling or same pronunciation". Should the article open with the technical or the common definition? (I've had to revert it a few times when passing editors have mistakenly corrected the first paragraph to say what the second is already saying.) --McGeddon (talk) 11:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical vs common definition 

message: Why Homophone contain Homonym in the diagram? Homophone are same sound, different spelling and different meaning and homonym have same spelling, same sound and different meaning  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.164.81.206 (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like you didn't bother to read the article, which clearly says that homophones have the same pronunciation but they don't have to have different spellings. It also clearly says that if homophones are spelled the same way, they are also homographs (and homonyms). (And homonyms have both the same spelling and pronunciation only in the strictest sense of the term.) --Espoo (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venn diagram may not be correct 

message: Good explanation and clear diagram in clarifying homonym, homographs, and homophones. I wonder if there would be more explanation on the importance of these terms related to linguistics. In some dictionaries, it seems that the line between these three terms are still obscure, would be it clearer in the ideas of these terms/usages by adding references from the dictionaries and summarizing their definitions as uniting all the definitions, in order to make it super clear. What about its relationship to antonym, paronym, synonym?--Fannyfish0224 (talk) 11:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  More reference needed? 

message: A wraith with a wreath has a fit of wrath during his reign in rain.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.93.213.240 (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  xD 

message: Considering that everything in this article is relevant and referenced reliably, I can't offer any critiques besides possibly expanding the reference list. However, the article is concise and provides sufficient references for key information regarding this linguistic concept. All linked citations appear to be neutral, legitimate sources (ex: Cambridge, Tufts, and Western Washington University,)  and are in working order. The homograph/homophone venn diagram PNG is sourced from Wikimedia Commons author Will Heltsley. Upon review of Heltsley, an education blogger and Utah teacher, his diagram is nice visual addition to the 'Related Terms' section which outlines similar linguistic concepts. Overall this article proves to be clear, reliable and up to date.
Kcoscia (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feedback 

message: I'd like to start an argument with someone here so we can personally attack each other so we'll end up at ANI with a thread entitled "Ad hominem at homonym". We might get blocked but it will be worth it. EEng 19:02, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are dumb. Natureium (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not dumb...bored. He needs to go back on tour. Atsme✍🏻📧 23:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Butt out, dumbass. EEng 23:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Butt out dumbass? Did you develop a stutter or is there a sale on redundant that you saw in an ad? Now that takes the cake...No I don't wanna go to ANI 23:35, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Your mother wears army boots. EEng 23:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: At least their mother served with distinction.  Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean like McDonald's -- "Millions and millions served"? EEng 18:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Pssst, EEng...my mom borrowed those boots from your mom; told me your mom was the founder of Army Surplus. Atsme✍🏻📧 21:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

text: You gotta lot of nerve. Your username is idiotic. It sounds like either an online supplement company or some phony cancer cure. EEng 23:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can offer you 30% off if you order today! Natureium (talk) 23:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an order: go soak your head. EEng 00:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

text: ...Quoth the guy with a username consisting of the sound effect that usually accompanies someone getting a boner in a stand-up routine. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  This whole thread is dumb and everybody here is dumber for having participated. Simonm223 (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The great thing about this thread is that it's hard to express disapproval without at the same time advancing its purpose. EEng 00:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you trying to trick us?  Kablammo (talk) 14:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ad hominem 

message: :I propose that we add pussy, which is a cutey name for a cat, mostly, and pussy, which can be a wound or boil oozing pus. This is I believe, an example of a homonym. Thoughts? Simon Adler (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one who likes living on the edge. 😂 Atsme✍🏻📧 19:42, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pussy and Pussy 

message: An examples illustrating "Same to varying degree" would enhance the entry --Backinstadiums (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[oronym]] 

message: Love the table, I'm looking for the term to describe when words are wrongly used. I'm working along the European Commission's Erasmus+ Sport strategy. But sport is not the right term; they mean athleticism (oh dear I just find out using the interlinking tool that even here on wikipedia athleticism is redirected to athletics). Athleticism = everybody who needs their body in a athletic state for their job: sporters, dancers, acrobats/circus, life-rescue swimmers, firefighters, ... . I'm e.g. in the Erasmus+ Sport Dual career and Post Athlete career strategy. Of course if you name it like that, it's not difficult to imagine that the  schools and federations of dancers, acrobats/circus, life-rescue swimmers, firefighters, ... have no clue because they stop reading when they see "Erasmus+ Sport". The terms sport, athleticism, athletics, athlete, are mixed up apparently in society.  So what is the term to describe the use of a wrong word by the majority in society? Or another one is the use of the term racist when people probably mean ethnicism? Thy, SvenAERTS (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expand "Related terms" table e.g. for sport vs athleticism, or racist vs ethinicist 

message: Near the very start of the page, the text uses row as an example word:  "For example, according to this definition, the words row (propel with oars) and row (a linear arrangement) are homonyms, as are the words see (vision) and sea (body of water)."
Row has three main definitions in common use that are homonyms: 1. "To propel with oars," as used in the text. 2. "A linear arrangement," as used in the text. Also, "An argument or quarrel" (in its noun form). All three are homographs, while the first two uses are also homophones. The third use is a heteronym to both of the first two uses. 
If the third version of row is not included in that initial example, it produces confusion among many readers who know row has another meaning with a different pronunciation.
A different word should be used as an initial example than row because of the three uses and complex matter of different types of homonyms involved.
Using row and its three forms and definitions as a homonym example further on in the discussion would be an excellent option for discussing the homophone, homograph, and heteronym dynamics that come into play in identifying those matters and the conceptual and practical distinctions among them.
Genwicky (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Row" as initial example - inaccurately and confusingly used; better used as a later example 

message: List 10 materials of wealth  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 105.113.20.18 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sos department