[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] holonomy

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:31:25 +0000
Message-id: <c09b00eb0903021231r281eb1va417a58e0321d1da@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks Mehmoush

not sure then if the two senses of 'holonomy' are a case of homonomy or polisemy
are the two meanings that you kindly pointed to related enough you reckon, or not related?
how can we tell for sure?

sorry if one q leads to another, or if this is obvious to others

On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Mehrnoosh Shamsfard <shams@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

homonymy is the relation between words which share their form (spelling
and/or pronunciation) but differ in meaning. we usually refer to homonymy
when we have different and totally irrelevant meanings for a word. So it
is different with synonymy as in synonymy the words share their meanings
but differ in their forms (orthography) for example the work 'bank' (a
financial institution) is a homonym for the word 'bank' (sloping mound)
and the word 'glad' is synonym to word 'happy', as they both have the same
meaning (at least in one of their senses).
there is also another relation called polysemy which is similar to
homonymy but polysemous words usually have different relevant meanings. in
other words according to jurafsky: "When two senses are related
semantically, we call the relationship between them polysemy rather than
I hope it helps.


>> Sorry, I meant homonimy
>> (was fried)
>> looks like a case of possible synonymy
>> ;-)
>>> so it may be a domain-specific lexical relation.
>>> Best
>>> Mehrnoush shamsfard
>>> > At a recent presentation
>>> > http://tango.byu.edu/presentations/ASWC08.LynnEmbley.ppt
>>> >
>>> >  the relator mentioned the word 'holonomy, I think commenting parts
>>> of
>>> > the
>>> > diagram structure at the bottom of slides 11 and12
>>> >
>>> > I think the term relates to holarchy as in
>>> > http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpls/abs_all.jsp?arnumber=997719
>>> >
>>> > However in the lexical relations literature, namely Lyons (1977) ,
>>> Cruse
>>> > (1986) I could not find a reference to holonomy,
>>> > but I did find cursory references to holonomy or holonimy in web
>>> searches
>>> > as
>>> > being lexical relations
>>> >
>>> > does anyone have the right citation for when holonomy was acknowledge
>>> in
>>> > literature as being added to list of lexical relations?
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > thanks
>>> >
>>> >

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (01)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>