Some details of my example were originally poorly chosen i.e. the example was constructed in a way that developer would probably have done a null check rather than a typeof comparison. I've addressed that now. My apologies to anyone who read this before-hand and thought the example seemed a bit too "fabricated".
5 Matching Annotations
- Aug 2021
-
-
- Mar 2021
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
-
In the simple biology example, dog is a hypernym and Fido is one of its hyponyms. A word can be both a hyponym and a hypernym. For example, dog is a hyponym of mammal and also a hypernym of Fido.
I wish they hadn't used tokens/objects in this example. Wouldn't it be just as clear or clearer if they had stuck to only comparing types/classes?
It may be okay to mix them like that in some contexts, but in other cases it seems like this would be suffering from ignoring/conflating/[better word?] the Type–token distinction.
Does linguistics just not make the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction ?
This statement seems to reinforce that idea:
words that are examples of categories are hyponyms
because an example of a category/class/type could be either a sub-class or an instance of that category/class/type, right?
-
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
-
For instance English has a domain ‘Rain’, which includes words such as rain, drizzle, downpour, raindrop, puddle.
"rain" seems more like a semantic field — a group of very related or nearly synonymous words — than a semantic field.
Esp. when you consider the later example of basketball (https://hyp.is/ynKbXI1BEeuEheME3sLYrQ/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_domain) and coffee shop, which are more like the sense of "field" that means (academic/scientific/etc.) discipline.
-
- May 2020
-
www.merriam-webster.com www.merriam-webster.com
-
of, relating to, or being a grammatical case or form expressing means or agency
I really need an example of this!
It seems unusual that they specifically mention "a grammatical case or form". I've never seen a definition before that is anything like this one.
How is this different from definition 1?
-
-
en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
-
In algebra, for some set S together with an operation ⋆ {\displaystyle \star } to form a group, it is necessary that ⋆ {\displaystyle \star } be associative.
Seems like a simpler example (of individually necessary and jointly sufficient) that is easier to follow could be found.
-