Talk:non-lemma

RFV discussion: June 2015

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process (permalink).

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

non-lemma

This entry currently has the sole (nominal) sense:

1. (linguistics) Any form of a term that is not a lemma

I added every English citation I could find from the results yielded by google books:"non-lemma" (except this one, which has erroneous bibliographical information) to Citations:non-lemma. All but one of those citations are quasi-adjectival, because they are the hyphenated phrase used attributively; only the second use in the 1995 citation is interpretable (albeit not uncontroversially) as a true noun.
Since there are twelve citations at Citations:non-lemma, I suppose that there should be some kind of entry for this term; however, I am unsure how it should be defined.
Pinging SemperBlotto, as the entry's creator.
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that the hyphen renders the citations useless for attestation. The hyphen is not a word-linking hyphen, but is rather part of non-. DCDuring TALK 23:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring: OK, but nevertheless, all but one use is in attributive use. How would you define the senses in which those authors use this term? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of citations for the plural non-lemmas at Google Scholar:

• 2012, M Piasecki, R Ramocki, M Maziarz, “Recognition of Polish Derivational Relations Based on Supervised Learning Scheme”, in LREC‎^[1]:

  In step 3, non-words or non-lemmas, that are often generated by the guesser modules, are filtered out from the result. ... Very often non-words or non-lemmas are generated as potential derivative bases, especially for input lemmas that are not derivatives

I'm not sure where these stand as far as being considered durably archived. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

A lot of journals are durably archived (something about being a "journal of record"). In the case of taxonomic ones, the nomenclatural codes have always required it- though online journals have tended to satisfy the requirement by donating a few copies to certain libraries. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring: Thanks for the citations and for pointing me to Google Scholar Search. This sense now has at least four independent citations, so it's verified. It is, however, rare, and I have marked it as such. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That it seems not so strange to us, despite its rarity, even in scholarly literature, is evidence of how far from 'normal' we are in our vocabulary. We are a poor model of 'normal' users. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

That lexicographers will know lexicography terms seems inevitable, even helpful. And non-lemma is not strange if you know lemma.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course, but we are still a poor model of 'normal' users - and should not forget it. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

@DCDuring, Prosfilaes: Its rarity (besides its clunkiness) is what prompted me to ask in the Tea Room whether there was another (better, more established) term that carried this sense. Still, at least "non- + lemma" is pretty transparent as "not [a] lemma" (to most people, not just us). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RFV passed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed "non lemma" from alt forms

It appears in one citation but apparently by a NNES. Since non- is a prefix in English, it is hyphenated or unspaced. Equinox ◑ 20:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)