July 7

Paronym states, "Some paronyms are truly synonymous, but only under the rarest of conditions. They often lead to confusion."

Can someone please give some examples to make it clearer to the reader? Thanks, cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 11:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Edcolins: wrote that statement, early in the article's history, and is still active. Perhaps he can clarify. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be tempted to restart that article from scratch. For starters I see the Wiktionary definition does not agree with the Wikipedia definition. According to the Wiktionary definition, which is much clearer, flammable and inflammable would be examples.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be an example where one word ("inflammable") can mean the same thing ('capable of burning') or something else (in this case the opposite, 'incapable of burning') than the other word ("flammable"), while "flammable" can never mean 'incapable of burning'.

Another type of example might be a set of words that have evolved to become synonymous in certain contexts or in combination with certain words, but have distinct meanings in other contexts. "Empirical Approaches to German Paronyms" attempts to illustrate this with the paronyms "effektiv"/"effizient" ("effective" and "efficient"). Sometimes I even think the distinction has died away, except among the prescriptivist and pedantic. One other famous German paronymous pair is "anscheinend" and "scheinbar": Nowadays a lot of people, including journalists and writers, use them synonymously.

I can't think of corresponding examples in English, but they must exist. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It stands to reason that no such thing as "true synonyms" in the sense that different words mean the same thing across all contexts, facets, varieties, et cetera exists: Making distinctions is arguably what language is all about, so if one can be made, it will be, however small in scale and scope. So it makes more sense to me to think of synonyms as words whose respective ranges of meanings overlap, and conceivably of one pair of synonyms as more "true" than another when there's more overlap.

To look at it another way, it doesn't really happen that a person uses two words entirely interchangeably. Whenever the person chooses one word over the other on a given occasion, that choice will have some basis - though the basis need not be a conscious one, so the person may well not be able to explain it. In the case of non-paronymous synonyms, it can have more to do with how the alternatives sound, or with how they "taste" or "feel" in a less literal sense, than with shades of meaning. But in the case of paronymous synoyms, those distinctions go away as well - which makes it a bit of a curious concept, to my mind.

- 2A02:560:4259:7600:3DC2:1024:A2:6071 (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (and agreed with you here). It appears that paronyms are often discussed in cases resembling Mrs. Malaprop's use of words, but I'm not sure that's what paronyms are all about. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I may or may not have thought of an actual case, nay, an entire class of cases of synonymous paronyms in English just now: Many adjectives ending in "-ic" have a counterpart ending in "-ical", without one being vastly more common than the other. Now, there are definitely cases in which the two forms ultimately turn out not to be interchangeable - like, when I hear "electric rabbit", I imagine a critter that's to a rabbit what an electric eel is to an eel, whereas when I hear "electrical rabbit", I imagine an animatronic toy - but my intuition says that while fine distinctions of that ilk can be made for some such pairs, they do not exemplify something systematic that applies to all such pairs. They're just historical happenstance, and presumably the less likely to be encountered the less common a given pair is overall. Honestly, I'd prefer my intuition to be wrong on this occasion, though!

- 2A02:560:4259:7600:B0A0:D414:4905:41FC (talk) 18:50, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The OED defines "paronym" as:

1) A word which is derived from another word, or from a word with the same root, and having a related or similar meaning (e.g. childhood and childish); a derivative or cognate word
2) A word from one language which translates into another with only minor changes in form, or with no change at all; a word formed by adaptation of a foreign word. Opposed to heteronym
3a) A word similar in sound or appearance to another; esp. a near homonym.
3b) A play on words that are similar in appearance or sound; = paronomasia
4) Philosophy. Esp. in Aristotelian philosophy (with reference to Aristotle Categories 1. 1a12–15): something predicated on accidental qualities of a substance rather than on the substance itself; a derivative quality.

Our article seems to be about 3a, but if any of these definitions deserved an encyclopaedia article it would be 4. DuncanHill (talk) 20:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. I guess there is no consensus on the definition to use, thus the original question can't be adequately answered? cmɢʟee⎆τaʟκ 18:09, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Baseball Bugs: thanks for your message (i.e. above: "... Edcolins wrote that statement, early in the article's history, and is still active. Perhaps he can clarify. ..."). Back in 2004 (a long time ago...), I did write the following: "The term paronym can also apply to words which are almost homonyms, but have slight differences in spelling and have different meanings. They often lead to confusion." That statement was replaced by the distinct statement cmglee quoted, which indeed needs clarification and a supporting reference. --Edcolins (talk) 09:06, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the sentences for now. It should only be reinserted with a proper reference. --Edcolins (talk) 09:09, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allen wants to put security near coffee resources:

Allen: Our economic interests are being compromised, to say nothing of the dangers of a Soviet presence so close to home. For security, Edward, we must establish our own presence there. I want you two to put your heads together on this. Michael will be going down there as an agricultural specialist with the Mayan Coffee Company. Non-official.

What does "Non-official" refer to? Rizosome (talk) 14:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably it means it will be an informal visit, not an official one.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the context is

Mission Impossible and Burn Notice

.

- 2A02:560:4259:7600:3DC2:1024:A2:6071 (talk) 15:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The context is indeed espionage; see The Good Shepherd (film). In reality (the reality of the narrative) Michael is a covert CIA agent.  --Lambiam 19:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does "specifically no a" mean? Rizosome (talk) 00:16, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the comment above, it's very likely just a typo for "specifically to a". Personuser (talk) 00:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any site where I can find a list of natural languages that dont or have certain phonemes?179.181.238.30 (talk) 22:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For every phoneme, Wikipedia lists languages that use that phoneme. For example, we find that the

Luxembourgish, Malay, Norwegian, Portuguese, Russian, Saterland Frisian, Sinhala, Slovak, Sotho, Spanish, Murcian, Swedish, Temne, Turkish, Ukrainian, Welsh, and Yoruba. These lists are far from complete, though. Note also that the phonemic space may be carved up differently for different lects, that the seemingly neat picture is blurred by regional pronunciations and allophones, and that linguists often do not agree on particular assignments or use simplified transcriptions.  --Lambiam 07:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Phonological Inventories by Steven Moran includes links to several databases of phonemes. Some are broken links now, or regional, but UCLA Phonological Segment Inventory Database and PHOIBLE are closest to what you are asking for. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]