Talk:Lexicon/Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 9 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jonpaullarson. Peer reviewers: Lcraddock2, AveryEllis.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ECardwell.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation & Question Post

-In the second section, there is no link for the term "reductionist" - The first section does not cite a source when mentioning the lexicon is thought to contain bound morphemes. Hortonanthony (talk) 07:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Hortonanthony 03-19-2017 11:07[reply]

Feedback re: unsourced statements/lack of references and lack of examples/clarity

The lead section of article contains claims such as “Linguistic theories generally regard... ” and “The lexicon is also thought to...”, and “...considered to be part of the lexicon ”, without citing sources.

The 'Size and organization' section does not cite any sources all.

'Lexicalization and other mechanisms in the lexicon' section: Examples of each of the mechanisms listed are missing; there is no source for for the statements made regarding mechanisms of lexeme change.

'New words' subsection: What is “kid slip”? The hyperlink does not correspond to a Wikipedia page in existence. There is no source for the claim that neologisms arise from “slang and activities such as advertising and branding”.

'Loan words'; 'Role of morphology' subsections: There are no sources for any of the claims made. There appears to be some debate on the Talk page about what constitutes an appropriate example for the "-able" affix. English is my first language, and I am not convinced of "cry-able" as an appropriate example (and am unclear as to why it should be considered grammatical).

'Compounding' subsection: There is no source for the claim that lexemes “are usually easier to acquire than loan words or neologisms”. The claim that compound words “can contain gaps to hold other lexemes on which they operate” is unsourced. Moreover, the examples given to illustrate this are unclear regarding which elements make up the compound word – does the string "bring" "a problem" "to" "your" "attention" constitute a compound word, for instance? There are no Wiktionary entries (or sources) for the Hungarian and German examples of compound words. There are also no sources to back up the claim that any of these words have “crossed geographical boundaries”. The following is unsourced, as well as unclear: “Compounding tends to produce longer lexemes which may result in lexemes of unwieldy proportion. This is compensated by mechanisms that reduce the length of words.” What is an example of an unwieldy compound word, and what mechanisms are there available to compensate for this?

'Diachronic mechanisms' section: What is a “diachronic” mechanism? This term is not defined. What are some examples of phonological assimilation, analogy, emphasis, metaphor? (I have added hyperlinks to the corresponding Wikipedia pages).

'Second-language lexicon' section: There are no sources at all for this section.

Atonello (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Vocabulary and Lexicon?

Please discuss this issue in the vocabulary discussion page. This way, everyone interested will know what everyone interested is saying. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.81.41.91 (talk) 13:56, 30 May 2008

speech synthesis lexicon

i found a speech synthesis lexicon that i use quite frequently and i think it would be good to put it as an external link on here. it defines words and their pronunciations for speech engines. the only problem is that it comes as part of a zip file with some other speech synthesis tools and so there is no link that i can put in external links section that points to it. any ideas on what to do? is there a way you can upload text files to wikipedia for download from external links?

"Exceptions" to -able rule

I removed this sentence from the article:

(Though exceptions exist to this rule: one can certainly imagine a 'sleepable mattress' or the expression, 'Sure, that's workable.')

I don't think the comment was correct, for the following reasons:

While you can imagine what a "sleepable" matress might be, "sleepable" is not an English word, and English speakers are able to recognise that it isn't an English word. That's precisely because it is not formed according to the rules governing the "-able" suffix (because "sleep" is not a transitive verb).
Workable is not a counterexample to the rule, because "work" can be a transitive verb - for example, you can work metal.

Enchanter 16:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even worse, the example of "cry" as an intransitive verb is absurd: One can cry alligator tears, for example; hence, such tears are "cryable." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaduria37 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could cry words, as in to shout them out. It's definitely a transitive verb there. Though I would argue that "sleepable" is in fact an English word since it is used in English, and I assume only English (maybe some Scots?), being derived from English words and suffixes and used by English speakers. It's just not standard. RCIWesner (talk) 05:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minka Parkkinen (geb. 1984) begon met circus in Norrköping, Sweden, toen ze door andere oudere meisjes werd opgemerkt terwijl ze radslagen en handstanden deed op de straat voor haar huis. Ze was net verhuisd vanuit Kemi in Finland naar de andere zijde van de grens in Zweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.225.2.65 (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

kindly suggest

I got more information about the lexicon and help me to understand the term better since I've already had some background knowledge with linguistics. Also, the article provided a detail definition about the lexicon. However, I think it might be a little bit confused or difficult for people who do not have any linguistics background. It would be nice if the article can have more reliable sources, examples, and clarifications to help people without linguistics background to understand the term better. Someone also mentioned about merging vocabulary and lexicon on talk page, it might be a good idea or it might not be. I personally think lexicon contains more information than vocabulary and lexicon has more details. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ylyvonne (talk • contribs) 04:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cash dispenser?

Maybe I was born too late into a UK that's already too Americanised but I've never heard anyone call it a cash dispenser. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.190.220.174 (talk) 14:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lemma

I object to the definition of lemma in this article, which currently reads "A lemma is a group of lexemes generated by inflectional morphology." This defintion is wrong from what I can tell from other sources. A lemma is not a "group of lexemes" -- it's the one concrete form chosen to represent the abstract lexeme in a lexicon. I found a better definition here: "the form of a lexeme conventionally chosen to represent the lexeme." Egotripp (talk) 17:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]