Talk:Accidental gap

Grammatical categories in the kinship chart

A user recently edited the chart of kinship terms, which had showed the lack of gender-specific terms for cousin, to include the lack of gender-neutral term for "uncle or aunt". In so doing, the editor added the column label neuter.

I'm just slightly uncomfortable with that label, since the set now seems to suggest that these are grammatical genders. Actually, though, many linguists (including me, if pressed) would argue that English doesn't have grammatical gender as such, notwithstanding the reflex in third-person pronouns. Crystal's Dictionary of Linguistics and Phonetics, the cited source, actually refers to "the absence of a male v. female distinction within the term cousin". That is, he doesn't use masculine, feminine or neuter. (The original chart, by the way, was created by me. Crystal doesn't use one.) Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Example of morphological gap in Russian

(quote)Although most verbs have such a form (e.g. vožu "I lead", vonžu "I thrust (a knife)"), about 100 verbs in the second conjugation pattern (e.g. *lažu "I climb", *deržu "I talk rudely"; the asterisk indicates ungrammaticality) do not appear as first-person singular in the present-future tense.(end of quote)

The whole example doesn't make much sense for me. First, while vožu is in present form, vonžu is in future form ("I will thrust"). Also, lažu "I climb" is considered grammatical norm.(http://www.classes.ru/all-russian/russian-dictionary-Ushakov-term-26442.htm) *deržu/derzu meaning "I talk rudely" is the only valid example of morphological gap here. 194.44.217.5 (talk) 10:27, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

The example is cited to Halle (1973), but it is possible that either Halle made a mistake in the original or (probably more likely) I or other Wikipedians made a mistake paraphrasing what Halle wrote. By all means be bold and remove mistaken examples. Cnilep (talk) 05:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Clarification needed

User:Ehrenkater added a maintenance tag calling for clarification of this statement: "Some nouns of this pattern simply do not exist, even though there is no grammatical reason for them not to."

I'm not sure how to clarify that. There is no reason for the gaps that exist; they are accidental or non-systematic. On the other hand calling them "some nouns" is probably not appropriate, given that they actually don't exist. Suggestions? Cnilep (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The main point I am making is that as the article is currently written, it implies that these "gaps" are a few unfilled places in a field that is mostly filled, whereas in fact the opposite is the case in, for example, English: if one were to print a dictionary listing all the possible "allowed" words, it would be millions of pages long.

Taking the example of verbal nouns ending in "-al" or -ion", only a small minority of verbs produce a noun ending in "-al", while only some verbs of Latin origin produce a noun ending in "-ion", which is only produced by replacing the "-um" ending of the supine with "-ion".---Ehrenkater (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

'[The article] implies that these "gaps" are a few unfilled places in a field that is mostly filled'. If that is the implication, it certainly is a problem, though perhaps it is a broader problem of how linguistics as a field is communicated to non-specialists. David Crystal, one of the prominently cited sources for this article, is a relatively accessible scholar. I hope the problem is with my writing and not with his explanation of ideas.

The (intended) point is not to catalog the field of words, but to explain two different reasons for non-existence. Some words are disallowed by grammatical rules. For example, ngtsei /ŋtsej/ is not a possible English word, since it violates the Sonority Sequencing Principle. In contrast there is no grammatical reason for /blɪk/ not to exist. In morphological terms, sausageal does not exist because -al is a suffix on verbs and sausage is a noun, but there is no similar reason for the absence of describal. The concept of the "accidental gap" describes the absence of reasons, not the absence of words. Perhaps this needs to be stated more clearly. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Does this make the example clearer? (Note, by the way, that I changed -tion to -(t)ion in the text and to -ion in the chart. OED calls -tion a "compound suffix" representing Latin -t (past participle) plus -io (deverbal).) Cnilep (talk) 07:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Malaprop error or what's a reverse dictionary for.

The phrase 'Snipe Hunt' is a common malaprop for 'snark hunt' referring to a practical joke for campers, in which the patsies (one or more of the company) are induced to hunt for a non-existent (usually dangerous) wild animal, while hilarity ensues on the part of those in the know. A snipe is a common bird. The Snark is a fantastical beast coined 1876 by Lewis Carroll in "The Hunting of the Snark." In 'coining a word', it is not unusual for the meaning to already have a word, unknown to the author. If the word is known to the audience, they considered a humorous or embarrassing malaprop. If not, perhaps it sneaks thru as if it were a clever sniglet or its ilk.--Wikidity (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Pseudoword and accidental gap

Some discussion about this topic at my userpage: User talk:Oiyarbepsy/2014#Pseudo-words and accidental gaps Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Idiom and language family

The following sentence is unclear to me; if it means what I think it does, it seems to be incorrect.

Such gaps are characteristic of idiom, the peculiar form of languages and language families.

I take this to mean that the absence of grammatically possible forms is "characteristic" (definitive?) of a language; that is at best unclear and possibly incorrect. Furthermore, I don't see where language families come into it. Different languages in the same family need not have the same phonemes nor completely cognate lexicons.

An anonymous user tagged the statement with a 'clarify' tag, which was later removed. The user who removed the maintenance tag instructed to "click through to idiom". That page says only that "Lexical gaps are another key example of idiomaticness." There is little discussion, and no references that one could consult. I know of no published sources arguing that lexical gaps are characteristic of language families – indeed I have trouble imagining how that could be the case. Again this seems at least unclear and quite possibly incorrect.

Could someone help either clarify this statement or remove it if necessary? Thanks, Cnilep (talk) 03:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'd like to request to point this thread to Talk:Idiom (language structure)#Insufficient context; possible original research, in the interest of having one centralized discussion. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

As there are no reliable sources, I moved the link to See also. Discussion can continue at Talk:Idiom (language structure). Cnilep (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In "Semantic Gaps": Nephew, Niece, and... Nibling?

In the Semantic gaps section, there is no gender-neutral term given for nephew and niece. However, according to the Nephew and niece page, there is a gender-neutral term for niece or nephew: "nibling". Granted, "nibling" is uncommon, but should it nonetheless be added to the chart?

107.15.35.205 (talk) 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I agree, with the proviso that the rarity of the word be duly noted with a footnote. I reverted the addition of nibling a few months ago because no ref was given and the word is not listed in any of 5 major dictionaries whose search fields I threw it against. However, today I checked Wiktionary and found that the etymology is given there and is backed up by a reference. Apparently an example of a word that only some genealogists and linguists use. So Wikipedia should cover it but also admit that most English speakers have never heard it. I'll go restore it. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Lexical gap as "word"

User:Ralph Corderoy changed a sentence in the lead section as follows:

Prior to August 21 2018: In contrast, the string /peɪ̯k/ obeys English word-formation rules, but is not a word in English.

As of August 23 2018, emphasis added: In contrast, a word pronounced /peɪ̯k/ obeys English word-formation rules, but is not a word in English.

It's a small thing, but the notion of a lexical gap is that a potential word is not a word. Therefore, I prefer either the original "string", or "series of sounds", which I suggested on 23 August. I would also be happy with other phrasing that conveys the notion that this string of sounds is not a word, despite the fact that there are no grammatical rules disallowing it.

In edit summaries Ralph Corderoy wrote, "Remove single use of `string' for describing a pronounciation." and (in response to my own edit summary, "It's not a word: that's the point") "It is a word, just 'not a word in English', as it goes on to say. Repeating the same 'a word pronounced' phrase shows it's an equivalent test to the earlier one, unlike the new phrase 'series of sounds'." Perhaps Ralph Corderoy objects to string as a potentially unclear term of art – or perhaps it is simply case of someone is wrong on the internet. In any case, other editors' opinions might help overcome this small disagreement.

As I suggested, I would prefer to make it clear that /peɪ̯k/ is not a word in English. This, I think, is necessary or at least helpful for understanding the difference between accidental and systematic gaps. I hope others will share their ideas here. Cnilep (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Cnilep, As a layman, what to do with the two bits of IPA must be described in the same way so I'm not confused if there's a difference with one being 'a word pronounced' and the other being 'the string'. 'string' isn't used elsewhere on the page. I don't know if it's a term in linguistics, but it isn't a link to a definition of what it means. 'a word pronounced' seems clear when applied to IPA, and is correct in both instances: the no-vowel-impossible one, and the possible-but-not-defined-in-English one.

'a word pronounced... but this is not a word in English' would seem to cover your concern that this not an English word. If you think neither IPA can be defined as 'words pronounced' then both need to be changed, e.g. 'the sound'. Or the non-English phrase could be to the front: 'The non-English word that would be pronounced...' -- Ralph Corderoy (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for engaging, Ralph Corderoy. What do you think of my 27 August addition, "a word pronounced /peɪ̯k/ would obey English word-formation rules, but this is not a word in English"? I had thought to say "a potential word pronounced...", but decided to keep closer to the parallel "a word pronounced [IPA]" structures, as you describe.

From my point of view, a word is not a set of sounds – or, not only a set of sounds. A word is a pairing of form (sound) and meaning. Therefore, a set of sounds in order (a "string") that does not have a meaning is not a word. I think this understanding is pretty standard among linguists and philologists (though I could be wrong), but as you say, that is not obvious to people outside the field. Best, Cnilep (talk) 23:00, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

'Liver' as homonymy blocking

User:Historical Cartograph tagged as needing a citation the suggestion that 'the word liver meaning "someone who lives" is only rarely used because the word liver (an internal organ) already exists' is an example of homonymy blocking. The example, though, seems to be directly paraphrased from the currently cited source, Productivity in English Word-formation by Jesús Fernández-Domínguez. On the other hand, Fernández-Domínguez cites Plag (1999) Morphological Productivity as the source of the example. I don't have the 1999 book, but the 2012 edition suggests a semantic reason for the blocking (that -er is agentive in both words), not a purely phonological reason of homonymy. Fernández-Domínguez thus expresses disagreement, at least to some extent, with Plag.

TLDR: The suggestion is already cited, but other linguists may disagree with the author cited. Cnilep (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2023 (UTC)