Comments on: Word surprise

By: Ken

Ken — Fri, 07 Dec 2012 21:44:30 +0000

I thought the recency was the period during which multiple disparate plethoras navigated the earth. No! Wait! Sorry, I just remembered that the Recency is a fancy hotel.

May there be freehood and brothership for all, with equalcy prior to the law.

By: jukkakohonen

jukkakohonen — Thu, 03 May 2012 08:11:55 +0000

I’m seeing recency illusion everywhere now.

By: Marc Leavitt

Marc Leavitt — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 14:27:01 +0000

To take the recency illusion out of the realm of linguistics for a moment: When you buy a new car, you begin to see the same model, seemingly all the time.

By: johnwcowan

johnwcowan — Tue, 01 Nov 2011 01:59:59 +0000

My favorite example, which mollymooly has probably seen elsewhere, is the semantic emptiness of -ate in English: there is simply no synchronic reason why we say separate but not *separe and prepare but not *preparate.

By: Link love: language (36) « Sentence first

Link love: language (36) « Sentence first — Mon, 31 Oct 2011 22:47:24 +0000

[...] Word surprise, or: What the hell kind of word is [X]? [...]

By: arnold zwicky

arnold zwicky — Fri, 28 Oct 2011 15:28:19 +0000

This is the sort of question that has only a historical answer, having to do when when words were borrowed, from which sources, and when new derivatives were formed, on the basis of which existing patterns. The result of these complex histories is often a complex set of synchronic forms; there’s no synchronic answer to some of the “why” questions.

By: mollymooly

mollymooly — Thu, 27 Oct 2011 20:53:01 +0000

Then there is the question of why “recent” makes “recency” whereas “absent” makes “absence”.