Talk:Word (language)

From Citizendium
Revision as of 23:32, 8 October 2009 by imported>John Stephenson (→‎Re opening sentence of Word (language): not sure about that)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition A unit of language, often regarded as 'minimally distinctive' and used to build larger structures such as phrases; languages vary in how distinctive word units are and how much they may be modified. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Linguistics [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive none  English language variant British English

Disambiguation

This will need disambiguation. There is at least also "Word (mathematics)". Should this be "Word (language)", or should the title stay "Word"? Peter Schmitt 09:27, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I agreed so I went ahead and moved the article. I would argue that Word should redirect here by default, unless others think it likely that many readers would be searching for e.g. Microsoft Word. John Stephenson 08:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re opening sentence of Word (language)

John, the opening sentence (clause) reads: "A word is a unit of language which exists in contrast to other forms such as phrases;..."

Would the following improve it: "A word is a meaningful unit of language which exists in contrast to other meaningful forms such as phrases and sentences;..."? Stressing 'meaningful', as having meaning characterizes all words. Anthony.Sebastian 03:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that: it would exclude nonsense words, which are also words. You could argue that nonsense words are not words until someone coins a new word that was previously a nonsense word, I suppose, but that doesn't allow us to define what a word is in itself. A nonsense word is still a word on syntactic, morphological and phonological grounds even if semantically empty. I realise the current definition is inadequate - effectively a what-is-a-planet definition, i.e. it's something that's not a phrase, sentence, etc. - but it's very hard to come up with an explicit definition of what is really something intuitive to us. I'm open to suggestions but I don't think that emphasising meaning is the way to go. John Stephenson 05:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)