[Lexicog] Re: lexical relation for boar - sow?

[amsler at CS.UTEXAS.EDU]

Don't confuse IS-A-TYPE-OF (ISA) with gender pairs. I.e., barrow  
IS-A-TYPE-OF boar, and gilt IS-A-TYPE-OF sow.

However, some pairs, like 'open' and 'shut' would seem to be more  
traditional oppositions than logical. Those two are either end of a  
continium and while explicit idioms relate them (it was an open and  
shut case), I am not certain of the opposition being so absolute.  
'ajar' doors are defined (W11) as "sightly open" which tends to  
diminish the absolute opposite status of open/shut.

There are other word pairs that have standing as a pair, even though  
they do not really represent 'opposites', such as 'salt and pepper'  
(table condiments?), 'oil and vinegar' (salad dressing), 'ebony and  
ivory' (piano keys).

Word associations show that the brain has these organized so one  
evokes the other, but it seems that naming the relationship isn't  
required for that to be true. I.e., people create pairs, things that  
go together, without requiring they have an explicitly named  
relationship to explain them. If asked why 'salt and pepper' are a  
pair, the response would likely be, 'because they go together'

True, we have salt and pepper shaker sets for table settings, but why?  
It would seem it could have just as readily been 'salt and sugar' or  
some other spice other than pepper. Salt and pepper have other  
analogous relationships, for example as a description of hair color  
(salt-and-pepper (W11) = having black-and-white or dark and light  
color intermingled in small flecks).

I guess my point here is that word pairs can exist for people without  
there actually being a name for the relationship between them,  
uncomfortable as that may be. Acknowledgement of the pair is certainly  
justified, but having a name for the relationship is a creative act  
not required by the language's native speakers.


Quoting lengosi <pcunger at msn.com>:

> Thanks for the explanation of different kinds of antonyms, Richard.   
> I found that helpful. I guess it works to a certain extent for the   
> pair boar and sow. But on the other hand: if not sow then {boar |   
> barrow (neutered male) | gilt (female that has not given birth)}...   
> There seem to be too many options for them to be complementary   
> antonyms (which you described as a 'pair' relationship). As I think   
> of it 'gender pair' also seems to be limited in this regard. Ron,   
> you're right--this is a mess! Is 'counterpart' too loose to describe  
>  their relationship? It seems to have the advantage of not being   
> limited to a pair.
>
> Paul
>
> --- In lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com, "Richard Gravina"   
> <Richard-Sue_Gravina at ...> wrote:
>>
>> Complementary antonyms express oppositions where the denial of one   
>> member of the pair implies the assertion of the other member. If   
>> not X then Y. Some examples in English are: alive and dead, male   
>> and female, open and shut, relinquish and retain. If a person is   
>> not dead they are alive; if a person is not male they are female,   
>> and so on. Other types of antonyms are Gradable antonyms (big and   
>> small) and Converse (buy and sell).
>>
>>
>> Boar and sow fit well as Complementary antonyms, as Robert says.
>>
>> Richard
>>
>> From: Robert Hedinger
>> Sent: Saturday, February 25, 2012 3:58 PM
>> To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: Re: [Lexicog] lexical relation for boar - sow?
>>
>>
>>
>> Some linguists call these Complementary antonyms.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>> From: lengosi
>> Sent: Saturday, 25 February, 2012 5:29
>> To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: [Lexicog] lexical relation for boar - sow?
>>
>>
>> Is there a widely accepted lexical relation to describe male-female  
>>  pairs of animals (e.g., boar and sow)? They seem to be  
>> (co)hyponyms  of some sort; probably not antonyms. Specifics of a  
>> Generic (pig)?
>>
>> Well, I'll make an end of showing my ignorance. ;-) Thanks for any guidance,
>>
>> Paul
>>
>
>
>




------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lexicographylist/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    lexicographylist-digest at yahoogroups.com 
    lexicographylist-fullfeatured at yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    lexicographylist-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/