Talk:Semantic change

	Language portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Languages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of languages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LanguagesWikipedia:WikiProject LanguagesTemplate:WikiProject Languageslanguage articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Linguistics: Etymology High‑importance

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Etymology Task Force.

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Nationality[edit]

I think an example of a word changing right now is nationality. Philosophically it's a concept all it's own - but in legal documents it's much more akin to citizenship (not exactly citizenship, but much closer to that than the old concept of nationality). And in common use "What is your nationality" is akin to "What is your ethnicity?" I'll leave it to the more experienced to decide whether or not to include this, but I wanted to bring it up to discussion. 1 December 2005

Awful as portmanteau?[edit]

Beautiful, delightful and remorseful could all be said as "full of beauty, delight or remorse". I don't think that it behooves the reader to throw other linguistic terminology at them for issues that are understood to them (-ful) and not fully understood to them (how -ful is a bound morpheme that comes from the free morpheme "full", etc.)

I guess, what I'm trying to get at is why it would be necessary to overly "jargonize" an intro snipet to Semantic Change with other heavy linguistic terminology, seemingly just added for its own sake. To me, portunhol, chillaxing and frappuccino are portmanteaux, not words like "awful" that simply underwent internal orthographic changes because of morphemic shift. Save the introduction of other linguistic jargon for more authentic examples.

71.57.186.90 (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Tom in Florida[reply]

Of mice and mice, a Blank, and the alleged similarity of concepts[edit]

This version of the article, edited by User:Sinatra at 14:15, 13 October 2007, says

However, Blank's (1998) categorization has been gaining more and more acceptance:

metaphor (= change based on similarity between concepts, e.g. mouse 'rodent' > 'computer device'; Grzega (2004) paraphrases this as “similar-to” relation)

(It doesn't identify "Blank 1998".)

Over seven years later, we are told:

However, the categorization of Blank (1998) has gained increasing acceptance:

Metaphor: Change based on similarity between concepts, e.g., mouse "rodent" → "computer device".

(This still doesn't identify "Blank 1998".)

I do not understand the similarity between the concepts of rodent and computer [input] device. (Indeed, to me they seem extraordinarily dissimilar concepts.) What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 05:29, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Narrowing" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Narrowing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 4#Narrowing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Mover of molehills^{move me} 23:14, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks of references[edit]

There are a number of examples here that have no reference. Rickogorman (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]