Talk:Connotation

message: Is cannotation something distinct from connotation? Or is it a typo?
S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.168.172.176 (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2002
:it's a typo. -- Tarquin —Preceding undated comment added 13:04, 30 December 2002‎<!-Template:Undated->
Typo. Iamyourfriend108 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: My intro philosophy book by John Hospers says that "connotation" is not limited to emotional responses, but includes any associations that come to mind for most people when hearing the word. I'm curious how widespread this idea is. If it's everywhere, then I guess the article is currently too narrow. --Ryguasu 01:45, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: See also the connotation and denotation page. Charles Matthews 15:20, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the link you give here has to do with the sense of "connotation" discussed in the first paragraph of this article. I am curious, however, about the "everyday" sense discussed in the rest of the article, which seems to be about a different sense of the word. Or are you suggesting that the distinction between the two is illusory? Are you saying that this article, as currently stands, is altogether inappropriate? --Ryguasu 18:27, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about that: clearly there is a usage of connotation from the side of rhetoric - and also a tradition that tries to bring it in relation with some logical concepts. Charles Matthews 18:37, 8 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Okay, I think I'm reasonably smart and well read.  I think I know what the word "connotation" means but I don't understand what this article is saying.  Can someone who understands this well please take a crack at lowering the reading level a notch so the rest of us can follow? (see m:Reading level) Rossami 23:18, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: (I know this was posted about 9 years ago, but posting anyways): I went back and looked at the closest revision you saw, which is this one, and from reading it, the reading level isn't all that hard. I do see a few words ("explicate" meaning "to explain", and "presuppose" meaning "assume without truth") that could have been reworded in simpler terms, but overall it shouldn't be hard for a native speaker to understand. If you really don't/can't understand it, there's another wiki with simpler articles: Simple Wikipedia. But I see no reason to use SWP unless you don't like to look up words in dictionaries. And we even have Wiktionary for that. - M0rphzone (talk) 08:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too technical 

message: Added references to wiktionary, is that correct? --AzaToth talk 19:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiktionary references 

message: I'm not quite sure what to do about this, but there seems to be some unusual overlap between connotation, denotation, and connotation and denotation as well the other articles.  Perhaps we need a connotation (linguistics) and a denotation (liquistics) and a disambig. Peyna 02:57, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge??? 

message: I came here looking for a word that I cannot think of or find anywhere else, so I'm not sure it even exists, but I am almost positive I knew it at one time.  It means the same thing as connotation, but disregards denoted meaning.  That is, merely how the word makes you feel when you don't know the meaning.  The example in the book I read used the old snarks and boojums. Lullabud 02:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar word? 

message: I don't like the example: 'strong willed' and 'pig headed' have totally different meanings, whereas 'used car' and 'previously owned car' have the same meaning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.38.218 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad example 

message: Mga simbolo at ang meaning 2001:4456:1DD:5C00:4525:A23C:390B:C3C0 (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Filipino