🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Nov20.111117.24278@news.unige.ch>, swann@divsun.unige.ch (SWANN Philip) writes:
|> In article <1992Nov20.103115.23839@news.unige.ch>, afzal@divsun.unige.ch (Afzal Ballim) writes:
|> > ``The degree of synonymy (or near synonymy) in the vocabulary for genitalia
|> > and copulation has no parallel elsewhere in the English lexicon -- except in
|> 
|> This is fascinating, but I think it actually supports my position. There
|> may be 1,000 words for 'penis' in the OED (really???): but in a given
|> speech community at a given time, I would bet that there around five.
|> Perhaps we could have a poll of the net (no, just joking!). Of course,
|> just having approximately the same reference is not enough for synonymy -
|> and I would again claim that in most cases the *usage* of the words will
|> differ. Also, these words often have an expletive function that one could
|> argue lacks semantic content completely....
|> 
|> Philip Swann
|>  
|> 

I agree. It does support your position in that it seems that true synonymic
use of terms is rare, and in any case is contextual! I.e., supposedly synonymic
terms are not universally substitutable.

-- 
Afzal Ballim	             |BITNET,EARN,MHS,X.400: afzal@divsun.unige.ch
 ISSCO, University of Geneva |UUCP: mcsun!divsun.unige.ch!afzal
 54 route des Acacias	     |JANET: afzal%divsun.unige.ch@uk.ac.ean-relay
 CH-1227 GENEVA,Switzerland  |CSNET,ARPA: afzal%divsun.unige.ch@relay.cs.net