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

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

Of mice and mice, a Blank, and the alleged similarity of concepts

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

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

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

Typology by Blank (1999) - potential citation mistake

I'm afraid the reference to the typology of semantic change by Blank pointing to "Why do new meanings occur? (...)" may need to be revised. I could not find any mentions of synecdoche or auto-antonomy in the article, it doesn't contain a comprehensive typology of semantic change in the way it's presented here either, only the typology of motivation/causes of semantic change. I also couldn't find the discussion about the amelioration and pejoration in the referenced article (a similar passage on German version of the article points to Blank's book from 1997). I think the showcased typology of semantic change could be present in 1997 Blank's book, but I have no way to check this information. 2A02:A31D:80CE:8380:84C1:16E8:6D49:BF9C (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]