- Mar 2021
It consists of two relations; the first one being exemplified in "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy) while the second relation is "An X is a kind/type of Y". The second relation is said to be more discriminating and can be classified more specifically under the concept of taxonomy.
So I think what this saying, rather indirectly (from the other direction), if I'm understanding correctly, is that the relationships that can be inferred from looking at a taxonomy are ambiguous, because a taxonomy includes 2 kinds of relationships, but encodes them in the same way (conflates them together as if they were both hyponyms--er, well, this is saying that the are both kinds of hyponyms):
- "An X is a Y" (simple hyponymy)
- "An X is a kind/type of Y".
Actually, I may have read it wrong / misunderstood it... While it's not ruling out that simple hyponymy may sometimes be used in a taxonomy, it is be saying that the "second relation" is "more specifically under the concept of taxonomy" ... which is not really clear, but seems to mean that it is more appropriate / better for use as a criterion in a taxonomy.
Okay, so define "simple hyponymy" and name the other kind of hyponymy that is referenced here.
The hierarchical structure of semantic fields can be mostly seen in hyponymy.
Good explanation about semantic fields.
I assume the same or an even stronger statement can be made about semantic classes (which to me are like more clear-cut, distinct semantic fields), then? ￼
- semantic field
- good explanation
- please elaborate
- relationship: type of
- relationship: is a
- relationship: subset
- semantic class
- I have a question about this
- good point
- lexical semantics
- set theory
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?
- Feb 2021