What does one call the term that causes the emergence of a complementary retronym?
ironick
original unmodified word "guitar", the term "acoustic guitar" emerged
because "guitar" (unmodified) was considered ambiguous. "Acoustic
guitar" is labeled the retronym. What is "electric guitar" labeled?
Certainly, both "electric guitar" and "acoustic guitar" are
neologisms. But I think it would be useful to have a word to denote
the neologism ("electric guitar") that caused the retronym to come
into being. I looked around and didn't find any such word. Before I
coined one myself, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't one already
out there. So I am asking here.
BTW, if there is nothing else out there, I'm thinking of coining the
word "specinym" for "specialized term." Retronyms come into being when
someone puts a specialized qualifier in front of a word denoting a
concept that previously did not have any "species" and then the
specialized term becomes popular.
Here's how I would use "specinym" in a sentence: "The popularization
of a specinym is what leads to the creation of a retronym."
Thanks!
-- Nick
Steve Hayes
>Certainly, both "electric guitar" and "acoustic guitar" are
>neologisms. But I think it would be useful to have a word to denote
>the neologism ("electric guitar") that caused the retronym to come
>into being. I looked around and didn't find any such word. Before I
>coined one myself, I wanted to make sure that there wasn't one already
>out there. So I am asking here.
Another is "audio tape" when "video tape" became popular, though both seem to
be destined for the dustbin of history.
Who will rescue the tape archives?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://hayesfam.bravehost.com/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://methodius.blogspot.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk
Mike Lyle
I see nothing wrong with a plain English formation: "new term". I'm not
sure I'd call many adjective+noun pairs "new terms" or "neologisms",
however recent the invention they refer to--though I'm open to
persuasion.
I'm uncomfortable with "specinym", mainly because its meaning isn't
transparent, rather than for its missing "o" or for the usual reasons
one doesn't mix Greek and Latin: it could quite easily mean "specific
name", the name of a species. Conversely, the first element seems too
far from the original to suggest "special". And isn't "specialized" the
wrong concept here, anyhow?
If I understand you, you want a word which specifically refers to a new
term for a new thing which gives rise to a new term for an old thing. I
do see that one might want such a term for guitars, and I suppose there
must be similar cases. (But all I can think of off the cuff are
electrical terms such as "thermionic valve" and "electric current",
where context always seems to make the full name unnecessary, whether
for electricity or for genuine fluids.)
--
Mike.
Garrett Wollman
Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Another is "audio tape" when "video tape" became popular, though both seem to
>be destined for the dustbin of history.
>
>Who will rescue the tape archives?
Many of them have already been erased. It's shocking how few
recordings (audio or video) of the 1950s through the 1970s have been
preserved at all. It's probably easier, at this point, to read an
"electrical transcription" disc from the 1930s than it is to read a 2"
Ampex videotape from the early 1960s. (I actually know people who do
this, although I've never discussed it with them.) But videotape was
very expensive into the late 1970s, and many broadcasters had an
official policy of reusing even important videotape masters after a
fairly short time. This didn't change in many places until the 1980s.
This is why, for example, the BBC doesn't have recordings of many
early episodes of "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue": the master tapes were
not kept, so they depended on hobbyists' (probably illegal)
recordings. The same is true of many 1950s network radio programs in
the U.S. -- in fact, stations even through the 1990s rarely saved
anything at all. It's only now, with most audio and a great deal of
video moving to digital media, that it makes economic sense to keep
stuff forever.
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Don Aitken
(Garrett Wollman) wrote:
>In article <rs2jf4hik5p762e03...@4ax.com>,
>Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>Another is "audio tape" when "video tape" became popular, though both seem to
>>be destined for the dustbin of history.
>>
>>Who will rescue the tape archives?
>
>Many of them have already been erased. It's shocking how few
>recordings (audio or video) of the 1950s through the 1970s have been
>preserved at all. It's probably easier, at this point, to read an
>"electrical transcription" disc from the 1930s than it is to read a 2"
>Ampex videotape from the early 1960s. (I actually know people who do
>this, although I've never discussed it with them.) But videotape was
>very expensive into the late 1970s, and many broadcasters had an
>official policy of reusing even important videotape masters after a
>fairly short time. This didn't change in many places until the 1980s.
>This is why, for example, the BBC doesn't have recordings of many
>early episodes of "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue": the master tapes were
>not kept, so they depended on hobbyists' (probably illegal)
>recordings. The same is true of many 1950s network radio programs in
>the U.S. -- in fact, stations even through the 1990s rarely saved
>anything at all. It's only now, with most audio and a great deal of
>video moving to digital media, that it makes economic sense to keep
>stuff forever.
>
The most famous example is probably the destruction of the tapes of
"Not Only But Also", which happened in about 1980. When Peter Cook
asked to be allowed to buy copies he was told that no copies could be
allowed to leave BBC premises under any circumstances. He then offered
to replace each tape with a new one and pay all future storage costs,
but was again turned down. Even the original scripts were destroyed.
What survives, survives in spite of the BBC; the original filmed
material was surreptitiously copied to videotape by Harry Thompson,
later Cook's biographer, and some of the rest (all the BBC now has)
was unofficially "telerecorded" by the show's producer, Joe McGrath.
Telerecording meant pointing a 16 mm film camera at a TV screen, so
the quality of the material preserved in that form is diabolical.
--
Don Aitken
Mail to the From: address is not read.
To email me, substitute "clara.co.uk" for "freeuk.com"
Robert Bannister
> In article <rs2jf4hik5p762e03...@4ax.com>,
> Steve Hayes <haye...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Another is "audio tape" when "video tape" became popular, though both seem to
>> be destined for the dustbin of history.
>>
>> Who will rescue the tape archives?
>
> Many of them have already been erased. It's shocking how few
> recordings (audio or video) of the 1950s through the 1970s have been
> preserved at all. It's probably easier, at this point, to read an
> "electrical transcription" disc from the 1930s than it is to read a 2"
> Ampex videotape from the early 1960s. (I actually know people who do
> this, although I've never discussed it with them.) But videotape was
> very expensive into the late 1970s, and many broadcasters had an
> official policy of reusing even important videotape masters after a
> fairly short time. This didn't change in many places until the 1980s.
> This is why, for example, the BBC doesn't have recordings of many
> early episodes of "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue": the master tapes were
> not kept, so they depended on hobbyists' (probably illegal)
> recordings. The same is true of many 1950s network radio programs in
> the U.S. -- in fact, stations even through the 1990s rarely saved
> anything at all. It's only now, with most audio and a great deal of
> video moving to digital media, that it makes economic sense to keep
> stuff forever.
For me, the saddest thing is their losing the video tapes of the second
and some subsequent episodes of the "Onedin Line".
--
Rob Bannister
ironick
wrote:
> I see nothing wrong with a plain English formation: "new term". I'm not
> sure I'd call many adjective+noun pairs "new terms" or "neologisms",
> however recent the invention they refer to--though I'm open to
> persuasion.
Wikipedia: "A retronym is a type of __neologism__ coined for an old
object or concept whose original name has come to be used for
something else, is no longer unique, or is otherwise inappropriate or
misleading." [emphasis added] So at least one body of interested
persons agrees that all retronym's are neologisms. Feel free to
persuade the people editing the entry that not all retronyms are
neologisms. Until they are convinced, simply calling the "specinym" a
"neologism" lacks sufficient precision.
> I'm uncomfortable with "specinym", mainly because its meaning isn't
> transparent, rather than for its missing "o" or for the usual reasons
> one doesn't mix Greek and Latin: it could quite easily mean "specific
> name", the name of a species. Conversely, the first element seems too
> far from the original to suggest "special". And isn't "specialized" the
> wrong concept here, anyhow?
I agree that mixing latin and greek in a neologism is not a best
practice. However, since retronym is already latin + greek, I think
the same mixture for the complement is actually a good thing.
As far as clarity is concerned, I think "specinym" works regardless of
whether "speci-" is taken to mean "special" OR "specific" OR "species"
since the former two are derived from the latter. In essence, what
"specinym" gets across is that a once generic term, eg guitar, book,
or watch, is now being specialized or is speciating. An electric
guitar and an acoustic guitar are both "species" of guitar, ie a
specific or special type of guitar. Same goes for "paperback book" and
"hardcover book". Same goes for all retronyms and their complements
(the specinyms).
If the original coiner of the specinym hadn't decided to
__specialize__ an existing term (eg "mobile phone"), but had instead
coined an entirely new word (eg a "mobie"), then the retronym would
never have come into existence. Hence I think it very appropriate that
the term that triggers the need for a retronym be based on the concept
of species, specialization, specific.
> If I understand you, you want a word which specifically refers to a new
> term for a new thing which gives rise to a new term for an old thing. I
> do see that one might want such a term for guitars, and I suppose there
> must be similar cases. (But all I can think of off the cuff are
> electrical terms such as "thermionic valve" and "electric current",
> where context always seems to make the full name unnecessary, whether
> for electricity or for genuine fluids.)
Since there are myriad retronyms (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_retronyms)
there are at least as many "specinyms", so it would be nice to have a
specific name for it.
Donna Richoux
> On Oct 18, 5:34 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
[snip]
>
> > I'm uncomfortable with "specinym", mainly because its meaning isn't
> > transparent, rather than for its missing "o" or for the usual reasons
> > one doesn't mix Greek and Latin: it could quite easily mean "specific
> > name", the name of a species. Conversely, the first element seems too
> > far from the original to suggest "special". And isn't "specialized" the
> > wrong concept here, anyhow?
>
> I agree that mixing latin and greek in a neologism is not a best
> practice. However, since retronym is already latin + greek, I think
> the same mixture for the complement is actually a good thing.
Did you catch what Mike said about the "o"? The Greek part meaning
"name" was "onym," not "nym". To chop off the first letter because it
looks trivial to English speakers seems wrong. A guitar is not an uitar.
>
> As far as clarity is concerned, I think "specinym" works regardless of
> whether "speci-" is taken to mean "special" OR "specific" OR "species"
> since the former two are derived from the latter. In essence, what
> "specinym" gets across is that a once generic term, eg guitar, book,
> or watch, is now being specialized or is speciating. An electric
> guitar and an acoustic guitar are both "species" of guitar, ie a
> specific or special type of guitar.
Therefore there is no good reason to pretend that the electric guitar is
special (or specific or the species) and the acoustic guitar is not
(special or specific or a species). I think you should try harder to
coin a name that *does* relate to the situation.
"Retro-" suggests time, so why not work in something related to time?
What prefix would suggest "later" or "after"? The whole point is
something came along afterwards and changed the situation.
Also, does your term refer to the compound or the base word? Is it the
two-word phrase "electric guitar," or is it "guitar" with the meaning of
electric guitar? Or possibly "guitar" with the meaning of any and all
guitars?
>Same goes for "paperback book" and
> "hardcover book". Same goes for all retronyms and their complements
> (the specinyms).
>
> If the original coiner of the specinym hadn't decided to
> __specialize__ an existing term (eg "mobile phone"), but had instead
> coined an entirely new word (eg a "mobie"), then the retronym would
> never have come into existence. Hence I think it very appropriate that
> the term that triggers the need for a retronym be based on the concept
> of species, specialization, specific.
Sorry, but I find that to be a weak and negative argument. "If they had
only been specific, which they weren't, then we would have had something
else, so let's call this confusing thing that we have, 'specific.'" Sort
of didactic wishful thinking. If you want any chance of people
remembering your word -- and what other point is there in putting in
this effort into coining one? --my opinion is that the word is going to
have to have a more direct link to its meaning. Which is why I suggest
"later" or "after," or something meaning "new development."
--
Best -- Donna Richoux
Mike Lyle
> On Oct 18, 5:34 pm, "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> I see nothing wrong with a plain English formation: "new term". I'm
>> not sure I'd call many adjective+noun pairs "new terms" or
>> "neologisms", however recent the invention they refer to--though I'm
>> open to persuasion.
>
> Wikipedia: "A retronym is a type of __neologism__ coined for an old
> object or concept whose original name has come to be used for
> something else, is no longer unique, or is otherwise inappropriate or
> misleading." [emphasis added] So at least one body of interested
> persons agrees that all retronym's are neologisms. Feel free to
> persuade the people editing the entry that not all retronyms are
> neologisms. Until they are convinced, simply calling the "specinym" a
> "neologism" lacks sufficient precision.
For the rest, see Donna's clear comments. Retronyms are likely to be
neologisms, but my para above was intended to convey that I'm not
convinced that a previously unused adjective+noun collocation
necessarily qualifies as a neologism, regardless of whether the thing it
refers to is old or new. If we search the literature and find that
nobody until now has ever said, for example, "Libyan satellite", would
we call the phrase a neologism? If we would, then the world's poetry is
crawling with neologisms. If our Tripolitanian friends were to launch an
artificial satellite, and we called it a "Libysat", then I think the
word would qualify as a coinage, a neologism. Is that clearer? If so, is
it true?
--
Mike.
ironick
wrote:
> Retronyms are likely to be
> neologisms, but my para above was intended to convey that I'm not
> convinced that a previously unused adjective+noun collocation
> necessarily qualifies as a neologism, regardless of whether the thing it
> refers to is old or new. If we search the literature and find that
> nobody until now has ever said, for example, "Libyan satellite", would
> we call the phrase a neologism? If we would, then the world's poetry is
> crawling with neologisms. If our Tripolitanian friends were to launch an
> artificial satellite, and we called it a "Libysat", then I think the
> word would qualify as a coinage, a neologism. Is that clearer? If so, is
> it true?
Clearly, not all adjective+noun terms are neologisms. Who claimed they
were? Certainly not me. I am merely claiming that the small subset of
"specinyms" (adjective+noun terms that triggered retronyms) are
neologisms. If you can provide a reasonable number of counterexamples
refuting this, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
-- Nick
ironick
> Did you catch what Mike said about the "o"? The Greek part meaning
> "name" was "onym," not "nym". To chop off the first letter because it
> looks trivial to English speakers seems wrong. A guitar is not an uitar.
I'd prefer to use -onym, but specionym sounds awkward to me,
especially since I intend specinym to rhyme with specimen. I'm
comfortable dropping the 'o' given that there is precedent for doing
so: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-onym .
> Therefore there is no good reason to pretend that the electric guitar is
> special (or specific or the species) and the acoustic guitar is not
> (special or specific or a species). I think you should try harder to
> coin a name that *does* relate to the situation.
Both the acoustic guitar and the electric guitar are special, but it
is the latter's initial specialization that caused the former to
become a retronym. Specialization is at the heart of the issue, so I
think it *does* relate to the situation.
> "Retro-" suggests time, so why not work in something related to time?
> What prefix would suggest "later" or "after"? The whole point is
> something came along afterwards and changed the situation.
I thought about that option. But nothing appealing came to mind:
futuronym, avantonym, progressonym, neonym? If you have a specific
word to propose, I'm all ears.
> Also, does your term refer to the compound or the base word? Is it the
> two-word phrase "electric guitar," or is it "guitar" with the meaning of
> electric guitar? Or possibly "guitar" with the meaning of any and all
> guitars?
Just the compound. I think the term "base word" works quite well for
the word that was split into the retronym and the specinym.
> Sorry, but I find that to be a weak and negative argument. "If they had
> only been specific, which they weren't, then we would have had something
> else, so let's call this confusing thing that we have, 'specific.'" Sort
> of didactic wishful thinking.
I'm not following your argument. They indeed "had [] been specific" --
they were just not __original__. "electric guitar" is quite specific,
but it is less original that a completely new, single word neologism,
eg a "guilectric", because "electric guitar" relies heavily on the
"old" word for its meaning. I continue to claim that practically all
adjective+noun terms that trigger retronyms involve an adjective that
__specializes__ the noun. So calling the adjective+noun term a
specinym seems quite clear to me -- not confusing.
> If you want any chance of people
> remembering your word -- and what other point is there in putting in
> this effort into coining one? --my opinion is that the word is going to
> have to have a more direct link to its meaning. Which is why I suggest
> "later" or "after," or something meaning "new development."
But "later" and "after" would be confusing! Because the retronym comes
into common usage AFTER the specinym. For example "acoustic guitar"
came into common use AFTER "electric guitar" came into common use. As
for "new development", see my response above re futuronym, etc. Again,
if you have a better concrete proposal, I'm all ears.
Thanks -- Nick
CDB
>> [well-observed discouragement]
> Clearly, not all adjective+noun terms are neologisms. Who claimed
> they were? Certainly not me. I am merely claiming that the small
> subset of "specinyms" (adjective+noun terms that triggered
> retronyms) are neologisms. If you can provide a reasonable number
> of counterexamples refuting this, I'd be happy to stand corrected.
If you still feel the need of a single word ending in "-nym", I
suggest "resartonym". It's another hybrid, the first element coming
from the Latin for "put to rights again", familiar from Carlyle's
_Sartor Resartus_, where it means "the tailor retailored"; so there
would be a suggestion of that as well, for people who think about
words.
CDB
[of course, it doesn't rhyme with 'specimen"]
> ["sartus" is familiar from] _Sartor Resartus_, where it means "the
> tailor retailored"; [...]
I meant to write "'(the tailor) retailored'".
Mike Lyle
I don't think I need to until you can demonstrate that "electric guitar"
actually is--or at any rate was--a neologism, properly so called. I
think it's just a collocation. And I really don't think "specinym"
works. This feels like an impasse to me.
You don't happen to have views on the appropriateness of the expression
"Pacific Ocean", do you? (Ignore this question if you don't know why I'm
asking: it's an AUE thing.)
--
Mike.
Donna Richoux
> On Oct 20, 4:11 pm, t...@euronet.nl (Donna Richoux) wrote:
>
> > "Retro-" suggests time, so why not work in something related to time?
> > What prefix would suggest "later" or "after"? The whole point is
> > something came along afterwards and changed the situation.
>
> I thought about that option. But nothing appealing came to mind:
> futuronym, avantonym, progressonym, neonym? If you have a specific
> word to propose, I'm all ears.
There are dictionaries in Latin and Greek on the Web. A useful one is:
http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/enggreek?lang=la
For "after," it suggests "post" in Latin and "meta" and "epi" in Greek.
Probably "meta" and "epi" sound too much like other "-onym" words.
"Postonym" would be another one of those Latin-Greek combinations, but
since we're inventing something for English, I'm not bothered,
personally. It's not mellifluous but it's pronounceable, easy to spell,
and "post" as a Latin borrowing is quite well known.
[snip]
>
> But "later" and "after" would be confusing! Because the retronym comes
> into common usage AFTER the specinym. For example "acoustic guitar"
> came into common use AFTER "electric guitar" came into common use.
Philosophically, we have to distinguish between the thing named and the
name of the thing. Electric guitars were invented after acoustic guitars
were invented, no matter what anything was called. It seems to me that
it is the invention of the later object that triggers the revision of
names.
The old joke comes to mind, "Time is nature's way of preventing
everything from happening at once." Stuff always happens after other
stuff.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> Therefore there is no good reason to pretend that the electric guitar is
> special (or specific or the species) and the acoustic guitar is not
> (special or specific or a species). I think you should try harder to
> coin a name that *does* relate to the situation.
There's not even anything special about the *name* "electric guitar" in
its own right, so it's not any kind of -onym. It's a retronymogen--or
perhaps, in terms of what it did to the original word, an onymophage?
ŹR
Athel Cornish-Bowden
<mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> said:
> If we search the literature and find that
> nobody until now has ever said, for example, "Libyan satellite", would
> we call the phrase a neologism? If we would, then the world's poetry is
> crawling with neologisms. If our Tripolitanian friends were to launch an
> artificial satellite, and we called it a "Libysat", then I think the
> word would qualify as a coinage, a neologism. Is that clearer? If so, is
> it true?
>
One needs to be careful with such coinages. In the days when new
genetic engineering companies were springing up daily some Italians
only managed to avoid calling their company GenItalia at the last
moment.
--
athel
Skitt
> "Mike Lyle" said:
>> If we search the literature and find that
>> nobody until now has ever said, for example, "Libyan satellite",
>> would we call the phrase a neologism? If we would, then the world's
>> poetry is crawling with neologisms. If our Tripolitanian friends
>> were to launch an artificial satellite, and we called it a
>> "Libysat", then I think the word would qualify as a coinage, a
>> neologism. Is that clearer? If so, is it true?
>>
> One needs to be careful with such coinages. In the days when new
> genetic engineering companies were springing up daily some Italians
> only managed to avoid calling their company GenItalia at the last
> moment.
The URL powergenitalia.com, however, enjoyed a brief run.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011202233202/http://www.powergenitalia.com/
--
Skitt (AmE)
Mike Lyle
And besides, Powergenitalia wouldn't have liked it.
--
Mike.
Donna Richoux
Are you thinking of Powergen Italia?
http://www.batterychargerpowergen.it/italiano/
It has to do with battery rechargers. A fuller account of the
joke/webname is in the archives.
Adam Funk
> One needs to be careful with such coinages. In the days when new
> genetic engineering companies were springing up daily some Italians
> only managed to avoid calling their company GenItalia at the last
> moment.
There is a company called Powergen Italia (hence powergenitalia.com),
but it has nothing to do with the British company Powergen.
http://www.snopes.com/business/names/powergen.asp
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
R H Draney
>
>On 2008-10-22, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>
>> One needs to be careful with such coinages. In the days when new
>> genetic engineering companies were springing up daily some Italians
>> only managed to avoid calling their company GenItalia at the last
>> moment.
>
>There is a company called Powergen Italia (hence powergenitalia.com),
>but it has nothing to do with the British company Powergen.
>
>http://www.snopes.com/business/names/powergen.asp
The Snopes link mentions the companion URLs for "Who Represents" and "Experts
Exchange"...also seen in the wild, "Pen Island", "Mole Station Nursery", "Speed
Of Art" and "Therapist Finder"...some time back I reported one I had found
offering "A Nu Start" for financially troubled individuals; that site has since
been moved....r
--
Little-known fact: About 2% of the famous
quotations credited to "Anonymous" were actually
originated by Jasper D Anonymous, a 14th-century
maker of carriage wheels.
ironick
> There's not even anything special about the *name* "electric guitar" in
> its own right, so it's not any kind of -onym. It's a retronymogen--or
> perhaps, in terms of what it did to the original word, an onymophage?
Glenn, I like the way you think. Both retronymogen and onymophage are
funny, but they really got me thinking.
Perhaps because the specinym (my pro tem choice) causes the root word
to become ambiguous, and it is this ambiguity that causes the
emergence of the retronym, a better name than specinym is "ambiguator"
-- that which makes a situation or something more ambiguous, see
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambiguate .
I'm going to give "ambiguator" and "ambiguating term" some real
consideration. For example:
"Ten years [made up] after the ambiguating term electric guitar'
became popular, the retronym "acoustic guitar" became commonplace. The
time lag between the introduction of an ambiguator and the
introduction of the disambiguating retronym can very tremendously."
Thanks!
-- Nick
Adam Funk
> On Oct 21, 4:28 pm, Glenn Knickerbocker <N...@bestweb.net> wrote:
>> There's not even anything special about the *name* "electric guitar" in
>> its own right, so it's not any kind of -onym. It's a retronymogen--or
>> perhaps, in terms of what it did to the original word, an onymophage?
>
> Glenn, I like the way you think. Both retronymogen and onymophage are
> funny, but they really got me thinking.
(agree)
> Perhaps because the specinym (my pro tem choice) causes the root word
> to become ambiguous, and it is this ambiguity that causes the
> emergence of the retronym, a better name than specinym is "ambiguator"
> -- that which makes a situation or something more ambiguous, see
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ambiguate .
>
> I'm going to give "ambiguator" and "ambiguating term" some real
> consideration. For example:
>
> "Ten years [made up] after the ambiguating term electric guitar'
> became popular, the retronym "acoustic guitar" became commonplace. The
> time lag between the introduction of an ambiguator and the
> introduction of the disambiguating retronym can very tremendously."
I like it.
--
Take it? I can't even parse it! [Kibo]
Athel Cornish-Bowden
No, I wasn't, but maybe I was misinformed in the first place (it
wouldn't be the first time). However, I think there really was a
genetic engineering company that was going to be called GenItalia.
Given that there have been been lots of companies (starting with
Genentech) named in that sort of way, it would, a priori, seem to be a
story more likely to be true.
--
athel
Skitt
> (Donna Richoux) said:
>>> "Mike Lyle" said:
>>>> If we search the literature and find that
>>>> nobody until now has ever said, for example, "Libyan satellite",
>>>> would we call the phrase a neologism? If we would, then the
>>>> world's poetry is crawling with neologisms. If our Tripolitanian
>>>> friends were to launch an artificial satellite, and we called it a
>>>> "Libysat", then I think the word would qualify as a coinage, a
>>>> neologism. Is that clearer? If so, is it true?
>>>>
>>> One needs to be careful with such coinages. In the days when new
>>> genetic engineering companies were springing up daily some Italians
>>> only managed to avoid calling their company GenItalia at the last
>>> moment.
>>
>> Are you thinking of Powergen Italia?
>> http://www.batterychargerpowergen.it/italiano/
>> It has to do with battery rechargers. A fuller account of the
>> joke/webname is in the archives.
>
> No, I wasn't, but maybe I was misinformed in the first place (it
> wouldn't be the first time). However, I think there really was a
> genetic engineering company that was going to be called GenItalia.
> Given that there have been been lots of companies (starting with
> Genentech) named in that sort of way, it would, a priori, seem to be a
> story more likely to be true.
Consult the AUE archives for around June 20th of 2003 to find many posts on
this.
--
Skitt (AmE)
Adam Funk
This has now made the Language Log:
A few days ago I posted about (among other things) the snowclonelet
"X virgin", conveying (roughly) 'someone who hasn't experienced X'
...
Then W Shore wrote to say:
I hope it won't be long before, just as the "electric guitar"
created the "acoustic guitar", we begin to hear about "sex
virgins." Much like, "I'm a chocoholic, but for alcohol".
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=910
--
Pengo is having second thoughts about his years working for the KGB.
(Stoll 1989)
R H Draney
>
>This has now made the Language Log:
>
> A few days ago I posted about (among other things) the snowclonelet
> "X virgin", conveying (roughly) 'someone who hasn't experienced X'
> ...
>
> Then W Shore wrote to say:
>
> I hope it won't be long before, just as the "electric guitar"
> created the "acoustic guitar", we begin to hear about "sex
> virgins." Much like, "I'm a chocoholic, but for alcohol".
>
>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=910
There's a story going around that some Hollywood idea man once suggested "Let's
do 'The Wiz' -- white!"....r
--
"You got Schadenfreude on my Weltanschauung!"
"You got Weltanschauung in my Schadenfreude!"
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk filted:
>>
>>This has now made the Language Log:
>>
>> A few days ago I posted about (among other things) the snowclonelet
>> "X virgin", conveying (roughly) 'someone who hasn't experienced X'
>> ...
>>
>> Then W Shore wrote to say:
>>
>> I hope it won't be long before, just as the "electric guitar"
>> created the "acoustic guitar", we begin to hear about "sex
>> virgins." Much like, "I'm a chocoholic, but for alcohol".
>>
>>http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=910
>
> There's a story going around that some Hollywood idea man once suggested "Let's
> do 'The Wiz' -- white!"....r
Aarrgghh!
--
I spend almost as time figuring out what's wrong with my computer as
I do actually using it. Networked software, especially, requires
frequent updates and maintenance, all of which gets in the way of
doing routine work. (Stoll 1995)
Mark Brader
> I hope it won't be long before, just as the "electric guitar"
> created the "acoustic guitar", we begin to hear about "sex
> virgins." Much like, "I'm a chocoholic, but for alcohol".
Well, I've heard of an event called a "runathon".
--
Mark Brader, "Technically, it is readable by a human being."
Toronto, m...@vex.net -- David Slocombe
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk quotes W. Shore:
>> I hope it won't be long before, just as the "electric guitar"
>> created the "acoustic guitar", we begin to hear about "sex
>> virgins." Much like, "I'm a chocoholic, but for alcohol".
>
> Well, I've heard of an event called a "runathon".
Maybe if they do one in Attica, they'll come up with a catchy name.
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
Adam Funk
> There's not even anything special about the *name* "electric guitar" in
> its own right, so it's not any kind of -onym. It's a retronymogen--or
> perhaps, in terms of what it did to the original word, an onymophage?
From Kingsley Amis _On Drink_ (1970), in the section on "Bar Kit":
6. A lemon-squeezer. This should be of the acoustic sort,
i.e. non-electrical, manual, and so always in working order.
Plastic is better than glass, because the flutes on the central
dome are usually sharper.
--
Leila: "I don't think he knows."
Agent Rogersz: "Increase the voltage."
Leila: "What if he's innocent?"
Agent Rogersz: "No one is innocent. Proceed" (Cox 1984)
Donna Richoux
> From Kingsley Amis _On Drink_ (1970), in the section on "Bar Kit":
>
> 6. A lemon-squeezer. This should be of the acoustic sort,
> i.e. non-electrical, manual, and so always in working order.
> Plastic is better than glass, because the flutes on the central
> dome are usually sharper.
That's a first for me. Will we see soon see mention of acoustic drills
and acoustic toothbrushes?
Or will there be enough people who know it has some connection to sound
("the acoustics of the hall...") to discourage a new meaning?
--
Stay tuned -- Donna Richoux
Don Phillipson
>
> 6. A lemon-squeezer. This should be of the acoustic sort,
> i.e. non-electrical, manual, and so always in working order.
> Plastic is better than glass, because the flutes on the central
> dome are usually sharper.
The quotation confirms KA knew more about consumption
than production (of tasty drinks.) The function of a lemon
squeezer is not to cut the fruit but to extract from it the
liquid juice: in which function blunt edges probably work
better than sharp edges.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Adam Funk
I haven't compared them, but that makes sense. (I think I've always
had a wooden lemon reamer.)
--
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk <a24...@ducksburg.com> wrote:
>
>> From Kingsley Amis _On Drink_ (1970), in the section on "Bar Kit":
>>
>> 6. A lemon-squeezer. This should be of the acoustic sort,
>> i.e. non-electrical, manual, and so always in working order.
>> Plastic is better than glass, because the flutes on the central
>> dome are usually sharper.
>
> That's a first for me. Will we see soon see mention of acoustic drills
> and acoustic toothbrushes?
I thought it was an interesting citation because Amis was a bit of a
curmudgeon, and had some good things to say elsewhere in the book
about piped music in pubs.
> Or will there be enough people who know it has some connection to sound
> ("the acoustics of the hall...") to discourage a new meaning?
Probably not, but the dang kids these days aren't familiar with the
non-electric version of the guitar.
--
I put bomb in squirrel's briefcase and who gets blown up? Me!
Default User
> Probably not, but the dang kids these days aren't familiar with the
> non-electric version of the guitar.
I wonder what they make of those Estaban commercials.
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
Nick Spalding
on Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:53:34 +0000:
The resident grandson has four guitars, only one of which is electric.
The one who lives a couple of miles away has two, only one electric.
--
Nick Spalding
BrE/IrE
Adam Funk
> Adam Funk wrote:
>
>> Probably not, but the dang kids these days aren't familiar with the
>> non-electric version of the guitar.
>
> I wonder what they make of those Estaban commercials.
I had no idea what you were talking about until I googled it.
http://acousticguitarforum.tribe.net/thread/e8c4ed48-3cd7-4ca0-95d8-c964fce166f7
Is he a fictitious character like Barry Scott?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easy-Off_Bam#Advertising_campaign
--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments