homophones - Are homonyms considered single words?

There are many homonyms in the English language, words that are spelled the same and pronounced the same but have different meanings. A few examples:

A grizzly bear can bear great weight.

I stake out the house while perched on a stake.

I took a bow after shooting my bow.

Take your pick of any pick or shovel.

I came to see the Bishop's see.

Are these considered one word or two? Does it perhaps depend on their etymology? Maybe if both meanings can be traced to the same root they are one word and if they derive from different sources they are two? Alternatively, how are words defined? Is it in terms of spelling, of meaning, of origin or a combination of the three? The free dictionary defines word as

A sound or a combination of sounds, or its representation in writing or printing, that symbolizes and communicates a meaning and may consist of a single morpheme or of a combination of morphemes.

That definition can be read as describing homonyms being both single (a word is a representation of sound in writing) and multiple (a word communicates a meaning) words.

Answer

Dictionaries have long had to contend with this issue. The word run, for example, has 50 or so meanings as a verb, and another 30 or so as a noun, but they all are grouped under one single dictionary entry. On the other hand, bow has three separate entries.

Most print dictionaries denote this using superscripted numerals for each separate entry, much like NOAD does (see screen shot below). In contrast, the online dictionary by Collins uses a numeral in a blue square for each entry to denote the same thing, as can be seen at their listing for bow).

As for your last example:

I came to see the Bishop's see.

I'd say that see and see are not the "same word," based on how they are listed in the dictionary.

However, as John Lawler has mentioned in his comments, it depends on who is counting, and what the count represents. In the sentence:

He had had a cold.

had and had are two separate words (it is a five-word sentence, after all), yet those two hads happen to map to the same dictionary entry, whereas, in the earlier sentence, see and see map to two different dictionary entries.

So it all depends on what your definition of word is.

enter image description here ^{NOTE: Some definitions have been removed from this image in the interest of conserving space}

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

nouns - what do you call the person who passes the trophies to the prize giver/presenter?

The person who gives out the trophies to the winners are called award presenters. So what do u call the person who passes the trophies to the presenter? Thanks!

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.

Notes

Search This Blog