Abstract
1. In the world of reality for which the elements of language are symbols, there are no visualizable objects which correspond to adjective symbols. Instead there are things having certain states or qualities to which correspond, in the realm of language, the combination noun plus modifying adjective. It is obviously difficult to think of state or quality as distinct from specific things having that state or quality. 2. Occasions when definition in the simple analytical style (genus + diflerentiae) is possible are rarer among adjectives than among other major parts of speech, for by and large adjectives seem less likely than nouns and verbs to occur in those hierarchies of sense-from most specific to most general-whose existence is basic to an analytical definition. Hence, the definer-unless he can find a synonym devoid of the faults of inexactness, ambiguity, circularity, and unfamiliarity-must frequently resort to a truncated or formulaic definition (e.g., ominous:of or related to an omen). 3. Many adjectives-especially those which are noun-derivatives with suffixes of multiple meaning-present the paradox of having numerous meanings but low over-all frequency. Practical considerations call for treating the various meanings of such adjectives in minimum space, using defining formulas which will cover several related meanings simultaneously; yet the acceptable practice of writing definitions which have breadth of sense-coverage too easily degenerates into an unacceptable practice of writing definitions which are merely vague or actually inexact. Because of these difficulties in defining adjectives, definers for Webster's Third New International Dictionary (NID 3) were given a guide to a wider variety of adjective-defining formulas than might be thought of offhand. This guide, dated May 9, 1955, includes forty-five numbered paragraphs,
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call