Talk:functional load
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for verification (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Rfv-sense: "Targetted exposure of an implement or organ to stimuli or other straining it is supposed to tolerate." Alternatively, the original definition, q.v. Citations might make it easier to clarify the definition. Citations that fit the other definition would be a welcome byproduct of the search. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: I have added your cites. Fay Freak (talk) 17:06, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Those are not my cites. The first one is not of the term, but rather of functional + load-bearing.
- @DCDuring: I have added six more cites. There are countless more. I don’t know what you are trying to achieve here. For the existence of such a term, this is cited. Fay Freak (talk) 18:44, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- Those are not my cites. The first one is not of the term, but rather of functional + load-bearing.
The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup (permalink).
This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.
Def. 2 (linguistics) The frequency by which an opposition occurs or becomes relevant in a language.
"Frequency" implies that functional load is a single measure, but it actually seems to be a concept that has been measured in several ways.
Opposition is not a term for which Wiktionary has a linguistic definition. Does "opposition" refer to phonemic distinction/contrast in linguistics? Is it limited to that?
Could this be: "The importance in a language of a phonemic difference in distinguishing lexemes, measured in various ways"?
An example box would help.
Def. 1 would also benefit from some love. For example, sometimes functional load seems to refer to "importance"; sometimes to "stress". Are the non-engineering usages metaphorically derivative of engineering usage. DCDuring (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: You already know the answer to the questions from my talk page which ultimately lead to you hither: “opposition” could have a linguistic definition, which is not restricted to phonemes (the very reason of this cautious formulation), so the request has to be to expand that page. The importance is constituted by frequent occurrence, and thought in that way, even though “measured” i.e. assessed in several ways; basically you try to distinguish here how much it is subjective to the speakers of a language or an objective property, which is dubious inasmuch as a language is not without being related to its understanding by users. Fay Freak (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would know the answer if I believed what you've written. An expansion is warranted only if there are citations or, at the very least, authorities to support expansion. Could you give me an example of linguistic usage other than for phonemes? Can you find a definition for opposition or functional load (esp., one not about phonemes) in a dictionary of linguistics? A definition is supposed to make the definiendum more comprehensible, not less. I think that the existing definitions make it harder to understand functional load than functional + load + usage context. I am fairly sure that frequency alone is not enough, unless heavily qualified. It two words are distinguished by a single phoneme but are not commonly used in the same usage context or in the similar grammatical constructions, then one's definition of "frequency" has to be adjusted. If one of the two words is not of great significance in and of itself (in context), than the frequency doesn't matter. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- @DCDuring: The first article I now quoted in the entry straightforwardly matches my definition with “expansion” and specific mention of frequency and also contains a whole history of the term; focus on phonology is statistically expected due to the coining Prague School’s focus on phonology. Your selective induction-based disbelief is fallacious. A particulari ad universale non valet consequentia. Fay Freak (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- There are a reasonable number of hits for "functional load of intonation". There are also people for whom phonemes are segmental and therefore don't recognise tones as phonemes. It's not common to see functional load quantified, so I think 'frequency' is too precise, but one rather often sees 'high functional load' or 'low functional load'. I think 'amount' would be a better word than 'frequency'. --RichardW57m (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- @RichardW57m Is there a word that is common hypernym of phoneme and intonation that accepts -ic as a suffix? DCDuring (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
- I would know the answer if I believed what you've written. An expansion is warranted only if there are citations or, at the very least, authorities to support expansion. Could you give me an example of linguistic usage other than for phonemes? Can you find a definition for opposition or functional load (esp., one not about phonemes) in a dictionary of linguistics? A definition is supposed to make the definiendum more comprehensible, not less. I think that the existing definitions make it harder to understand functional load than functional + load + usage context. I am fairly sure that frequency alone is not enough, unless heavily qualified. It two words are distinguished by a single phoneme but are not commonly used in the same usage context or in the similar grammatical constructions, then one's definition of "frequency" has to be adjusted. If one of the two words is not of great significance in and of itself (in context), than the frequency doesn't matter. DCDuring (talk) 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
- @DCDuring, does it look better now? CitationsFreak (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Thanks. I still wonder whether the term is not used in context in a way that makes this SoP, but that's another matter and not one I care to address now or, probably, ever. DCDuring (talk) 22:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)