The meaning of GENERIC in linguistics (one last word for now)

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

I agree with Larry that maybe it is time to stop this thread for now (or take
it private), so I will add only two quick comments myself.

1. I did find two instances of "autohyponymy" through Google, one of which
defined it as the case where "the new sense of a term is a hyponym of the
original." I now see that this is a term of his own creation and that at least two
other linguists have also used it since 1984. It looks like a useful term to
me, so I'm glad he coined it and I am sure I will use it from now on whenever I
am in need of such a word, even though this use of <auto-> strikes me as
somewhat eccentric compared to the use in, say, "autoerotic" or "automobile" (just
a matter of taste, of course).

2. I thank Larry for reminding me that the term GENERIC is also used in
morphology to refer to nouns and pronouns that are putatively sex-neutral. I agree
with him that "The issue of (intended or purported) sex-neutrality overlaps
perniciously with that of morphological genericity (the bare singular
illustrated above) as well as (ordinary) semantic genericity, of the type Ron alludes
to." The operative word here is, as I see it, "perniciously." Indeed, so far as
I can see, the only thing of importance that these three quite different
phenomena have in common is the label GENERIC. The relationship between "Kleenex"
and putative "kleenex" does not seem to me to be illuminated in the slightest
by confusing the issue with either of the other two uses of "GENERIC."

3. I would be interested in helping to organize a panel on the various issues
surrounding the various uses of GENERIC at some conference in the
future--perhaps, say, Law and Society in 2006, or, if it is not too late, ANS in 2006
(meeting with LSA/ADS). If anyone is interested in this, let me know.