Talk:sum of parts
Non-linguistic meaning
In the history of the article, there has originally been the following non-liguistic definition:
- Having no more meaning than that of its individual parts combined.
Only later has it been extended with a liguistic example forming a part of the definition. A correction or extension may be needed. Yeah, but was it really non-linguistic, given the term "meaning" has been used a part of the definition? Maybe I am just confused a bit.
--Daniel Polansky 14:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
- Is the Shakespeare quotation really referring to what is defined here: a sequence of words? Equinox 01:29, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
- No. So I've added the "literal" sense as well. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I've always wanted to put
{{rfd|sum of parts}}on this article. Would be humorous and it might actually fail the rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)- Under the "misnomer principle", a heuristic name for idiomaticity criteria at least as applied to nouns, the linguistic sense is an idiom. The operation by which the meaning of a sequence of words is obtained is not summation in any sense of summation that has been defined in any dictionary I know. One has to group the terms into a unit that can be assigned meaning and the words have to be combined using the rules of the language. BTW, in English the order matters a lot; in some other languages, not so much. So the use of "sequence" may introduce an Anglophone POV to the definition. (Actually, I don't know the right term for the "bias".) DCDuring TALK 18:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've always wanted to put
- No. So I've added the "literal" sense as well. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
What does
"Used other than with a figurative or idiomatic meaning: see sum, of, parts. The expression "brown leaf" is a sum of parts, since it has no idiomatic meaning: no meaning beyond "brown" + "leaf"."
have to do with logic? When we say "brown leaf" the meaning is a logical AND A.K.A. logical conjunction symbolized 'brown leaf', that is, the only leaf we are identifying is also colored brown. This particular type of modification of a noun by an adjective can be regarded as a filter or sieve of meaning herein by excluding all colors of a leaf that are not brown. CarlWesolowski (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
RFV discussion
The following information has failed Wiktionary's verification process.
Failure to be verified means that insufficient eligible citations of this usage have been found, and the entry therefore does not meet Wiktionary inclusion criteria at the present time. We have archived here the disputed information, the verification discussion, and any documentation gathered so far, pending further evidence.
Do not re-add this information to the article without also submitting proof that it meets Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion.
Sum of parts.
...just kidding, but I can't find any usage outside of Wiktionary. -- Prince Kassad 19:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- You mean dictionary inclusions, right? Both sum of parts and sum of its parts (the more common form) are easy to find. Probably should just be in one of our glossaries with an
{{only in}}. Isn't this an RfD matter? DCDuring TALK 20:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)- How so? Do you actually think sum of parts is a sum of parts? (which I partly agree with) -- Prince Kassad 20:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- Clearly widespread use. And keep, I think. This is a typical way to refer to a thing conceived non-holistically; and it's often hyphenated. I think it alludes to the proverb, The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. —RuakhTALK 20:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- (Though our definition is way, way too narrow. There is nothing specifically linguistic about this.) —RuakhTALK 20:36, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
- The proverb certainly is includable. The way we use this phrase is not too unusual: we are alluding to the proverb when we refer to something as being "sum of parts", meaning that its referent is only the sum of its parts and nothing more. I'm not convinced that the allusion makes it idiomatic. I recall the how do I get to Carnegie Hall case. DCDuring TALK 02:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's keepable as an expression, but the tagged definition is probably not attestable. DAVilla 18:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
This is rfv-sense on this sense: "(linguistics) A sequence of words that has no more meaning than that of its individual parts when interpreted under grammatical rules, such as three apples having no meaning beyond apples numbering three.". --Dan Polansky 18:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- This seems to be a Wiktionary jargon. I have found no linguistics usage in the first ten pages of google books:"sum of parts"; Google scholar did not perform any better. --Dan Polansky 18:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Another search is google books:"sum of parts" linguistics. In this, I have found "sum of parts" used to explain cumulative reference, found in mass terms such as gold and water, but there "sum of parts" does not refer to a term but to its referent--to what the term such as "gold" or "water" refers to.. --Dan Polansky 18:43, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
RFV failed, entry deleted. Color me shocked. I really thought this was in widespread use, but I guess Wiktionary jargon has infected my brain. —RuakhTALK 04:01, 1 February 2011 (UTC)