Lingualogue Blog

I was reading a blog the other day that seemed to have some confusion about the definition of the word homonym. I did some checking and was surprised to see that this confusion is much more widespread than I had previously thought. We are not just talking about confusion among the general public here, we are talking confusion between the big players–the education websites, the information portals, and even the heavyweight dictionary boys. Nobody can seem to give a definitive answer on the specific definitions of homonyms, heteronyms, homographs, and homophones.

If the main dictionaries can not agree does this mean that a definitive definition does not exist? Is it simply that people do not want to agree so each person must pick a homonym side and stick to it? It seems like one big argument that no side is willing to back down on. To me this is just plain stupidity: How can we teach children the meaning of a word if we don’t know ourselves, and there is no main authority from which we can get an answer because the authorities do not agree themselves.

My impression of the meaning of these words, and the one that seems to have the most support (albeit marginal) is as follows

Homograph: Words that have the same spelling but different meanings. The pronunciation may or may not be the same.
(Remember by homo – same, graph – image)

Homophone: Words that have the same pronunciation but different meanings. The spelling may or may not be the same.
(Remember by homo – same, phone – sound)

This is where the arguments begin: I have always understood that homophones and homographs are the umbrella sets that include homonyms and heteronyms, in other words homonyms and heteronyms are types of homograph and/or homophone. The rivals believe it is the other way around.

So in my understanding the definitions are as follows:

Homonym: Words with the same spelling AND the same pronunciation but different meaning
(This means that homonyms are both homographs AND homophones)
(Remember by Homo – same, nym – name)

Examples of homonyms

bear n. mammal of the Ursidae family / to carry
stalk n.  stem of a plant / track prey
fair adj. pleasant-looking / a gathering for a market, exhibition
bow n. the front of a ship / to incline the body or head in greeting

Heteronym: Words with the same spelling but different pronunciation and different meaning.
(This means that heteronyms are a type of homograph but not homophone)
(Remember by Hetero – different, nym – name)

Examples of heteronym

contest:  to compete in a match of skills/make an argument against something
does:  multiple female deer/to perform
lead:  to guide/a soft dense metal
resign:  to quit/to sign again
tear:  liquid drops secreted by the eye/to pull apart
wind:  to encircle/moving air

These definitions are what I believe to be the meanings of these words, but as I say, by the look of it I could just as easily be wrong. It is possible that a homophone is indeed a type of homonym and not vice-versa, or a homograph is indeed a type of heteronym and not the other way as I believe. If that is the case, then fine, I will gladly change my current thinking.

I just wish they would make up their minds and let me know.

I really wish I could take credit for the following list, but sadly I cannot.  It is a wonderfully funny list of what to do, and more appropriately what not do, when writing in English. It is not just funny though, it is also very clever and actually useful, although I am not sure if people who do not know the rules/terms already will understand either the humour or the usefulness.

Here are the 33 rules for better writing -  if there are any that you do not get, you should look them up immediately as this is a great way to see each rule in a self broken context.

1. Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects.

33. Exaggeration is a billion times worse than understatement

This list has been taken from the Humor Matters website which includes many more language related funnies than this and is definitely worth checking out.

I showed my obvious ignorance of the early days of the internet today as a few friends and I were discussing different methods to escape the tedium of a long afternoon of cancelled classes. After a few runs through the usual football (soccer) trivia games, one guy came up with the ‘Google Whack challenge’.

I have to admit I had never

A valid Google Whack - just not mine

heard of this, or if I had, I had relegated it to the same place as the memories of what I wore for work in 1998. Apparently, Google Whacking was a craze in 2002 onwards and even had (and still has) its own website. I guess I must have missed it. The basic idea for Google Whacking is amazingly simple and yet disturbingly frustrating:  Think of two words and input them in the Google search engine (without quotes) and see how many results are returned. If only it were that simple. The aim is to have your two words return a single result. One piddly little webpage found out of the billions  available, for a search query comprising two words.

I am sure this would have been much easier in 2002 when it all began, after all Google has grown almost exponentially in size and visibility since then. I am convinced, however, that it is still possible. Don’t ask me why. I have no basis for this theory other than the English language is enormous, and combining two words gives  almost limitless permutations from which we should not find relevant websites. The trick is finding the right combination. The mix of words that nobody in their right mind would ever combine on a website (even a dodgy one). It is made slightly more difficult these days, however, with the ubiquity of dictionary and reference sites, as well as the plethora of worthless dollar-driven, or ego-centric wastes of cyberspace of which we are all less than fondly acquainted. You will be surprised (or possibly not) at the crap that is returned. Who in their right mind would ever purposefully visit this drivel, let alone make it?

The challenge is still going though, seven years after it was created. Sure there is no craze now and most people probably think that a Google Whack is a type of internet porn, but the system is still running and the rules are still in place. Who cares if it is more difficult now, we like a challenge right? Be warned though, this could take up literally hours of your free time, days even, and can become highly addictive and a point of pride between friends– especially if you are cursed with a similarly competitive spirit.

If you do happen to find yourself with a few hours to spare and consider yourself a bit of a wordsmith (and have not been a computer geek since 2002) then give it a whirl. Find two words, bang them into Google and see if you can get one result. If you do, let me know and I will write a post with the results. In fact if you do, let Google Whack know and gain a place in history.

Just one more thing before you shoot off and start testing your knowledge of the little known annals of the English language by hammering random words into your search box: THERE ARE RULES (see below) and if you want recognition you must adhere to them.

So many people on the web claim to have found a google whack and yet have obviously not read the rules. Good luck…and happy Google Whacking.

RULES (from the website)

1. Googlefactors must exist in this dictionary. It’s so easy to confirm: Google does the work! In the blue bar atop your Google results, accepted terms are linked to dictionary.com, and so appear ‘underlined.’ No line, no link = Googlejack! (As in, You’ve got jack! Make sure both of your terms are underlined, otherwise it is easy.

2. Google also is the arbiter of a whack’s uniqueness. Look to the right end of the blue bar atop your Google results. If you see “Results 1 – 1 of (any number),’ you found exactly one hit = Googlewhack!

3. Google shows you an excerpt of the page you whacked. Look at that text. If it’s merely a list of words, No Whack For You!

Prevents using lists of medical terms, ailments or phobias.

Just in case you made it this far down, we still have not managed to get just one single result. My friend got 3 (can’t remember the words off hand) but it is damned hard.

Happy Whacking (so to speak)

When learning a new language, one of the things you have to be careful of when formulating sentences is being ambiguous. This can only lead to misunderstandings and confusion.

You only have to look at the English language to see how ambiguity can arise. Many words in English have more than one meaning: The word “round” apparently has over 70 different meanings depending on how it is used and this can cause great confusion…or great hilarity. Even native speakers often misuse the language to a degree where ambiguity becomes humerous.

Below are a few examples I found across the net of how easy it is to be lax in language use and create humerous ambiguity.

• Poster: Dog For Sale: Eats anything; especially fond of children.
• Menu: Dinner Special – Chicken or Beef $2.25; Turkey $2.35; Children $2.00
• Poster: For sale: An antique desk suitable for lady with thick legs and large drawers.
• Advertisement: Wanted: Man to take care of cow that does not smoke or drink.
• Advertisement: We do not tear your clothing with machinery. We do it carefully by hand.
• Advertisement: Now is your chance to have your ears pierced and get an extra pair to take home too.
• Advertisement: Used Cars: Why go elsewhere to be cheated? Come here first!
• Advertisement: Auto Repair Service. Free pickup and delivery. Try us once, and you’ll never go anywhere again.
• Advertisement: Mixing bowl set designed to please a cook with round bottom for efficient beating.
• Advertisement: And now, the Superstore – unequalled in size, unmatched in variety, unrivalled inconvenience.
• Poster: Illiterate? Write for free information.
• In a Vienna hotel: In case of fire, do your utmost to alarm the hotel porter.
• In a Zurich hotel: Because of the impropriety of entertaining guests of the opposite sex in the bedroom, it is suggested that the lobby be used for this purpose.
• In a Rome laundry: Ladies, leave your clothes here and spend the afternoon having a good time.
• Advertisement for donkey rides in Thailand: Would you like to ride on your own ass?
• In a Bangkok temple: It is forbidden to enter a woman even foreigner if dressed as a man.
• In a Norwegian cocktail lounge: Ladies are requested not to have children in the bar.
• In the office of a Roman doctor: Specialist in women and other diseases.
• In a Japanese hotel: You are invited to take advantage of the chambermaid.
• Outside a Hong Kong tailor shop: Ladies may have a fit upstairs.
• In a Bangkok dry cleaner’s: Drop your trousers here for best results.
• In an Acapulco hotel: The manager has personally passed all the water served here.
• Church bulletin: The rosebud on the altar this morning is to announce the birth of David Alan Belzer, the sin of Rev. and Mrs. Julius Belzer.
• Church bulletin: This being Easter Sunday, we will ask Mrs. Lewis to come forward and lay an egg on the altar.
• Church bulletin: The ladies of the church have cast off clothing of every kind and they may be seen in the church basement Friday.
• Outside a farm: Horse manure: 50p per pre-packed bag, 20p do-it-yourself
• Seen at the side of a Sussex road: Slow cattle crossing. No overtaking for the next 100 yrs.
• Notice in a field: The farmer allows walkers to cross the field for free, but the bull charges
• Message on a leaflet: If you cannot read, this leaflet will tell you how to get lessons
• Sign at Norfolk farm gate: Beware! I shoot every tenth trespasser and the ninth one has just left
• Spotted in a toilet in a London office block: Toilet out of order. Please use floor below
• Seen in a watch shop: Please wait patiently to be served. I only have two hands

Newspaper headlines

• Federal agents raid gun shop, find weapons
• One-armed man applauds the kindness of strangers
• Autos killing 110 a day; let’s resolve to do better
• Dr. Ruth to talk about sex with newspaper editors
• Enraged cow injures farmer with ax
• Eye drops off shelf
• Iraqi head seeks arms
• Juvenile court tries shooting defendant
• Killer sentenced to die for second time in 10 years
• Kicking baby considered to be healthy
• Two soviet ships collide — one dies
• William Kelly was Fed Secretary
• Kids make nutritious snacks
• Milk drinkers are turning to powder

Welcome to the very first post of the new Lingualogue language learning blog.

Up until this point, Lingualogue has been very simply a website for helping native English speakers to learn that elusive second language. We have done reviews, posted links, and added material to aid people’s learning as much as we can. We have always striven to post as much new content as possible, but sadly we have not always been successful in this aim and have not been as frequent with new material as we might have liked.

Enter the Blog!

Blogs are an interesting medium for transferring information. They allow the writer to express thoughts, ideas, and opinions and then publish them immediately, at the touch of a button, to the waiting world. Blogs allow more abstract content than more regular webpages and basically allow content to be posted at a faster rate.

The idea behind the Lingualogue Blog is to run in tandem with the Lingualogue website but provide content on a more regular and frequent basis, but also often of a more personal nature. We will post opinions about language learning, difficulties with other languages, and the joys and pitfalls of living abroad. As well as a lot of other stuff I haven’t even thought of yet. The blogs will be personal viewpoints of the writer, whether they be from Lingualogue or a member of the public and will give anyone wanting to learn that second language a blunt insight into what they can expect.

I wish you luck with your language learning and hope Lingualogue Blog will be of help to you.

Neil Breakwell