Seun mynd44 lalastical seun justwise farano OAM4J Disguy

Seun mynd44 will never move this to FP because it's against Tinubu

etrange:


First, in language arts, we hardly give a yes or no response because there are always exceptions to consider. Again, I don't know what primary meaning is here, but I'm assuming you mean the denotative meaning. So to answer you the best way I can, yes, it does change the meaning in the specific context under consideration. And this is a very normal thing in semantics. Consider the examples below.

My pig gave birth to 13 piglets today!
Pig here is a farm animal.

Mr. Adegoke is a pig!
Pig here is a dirty man.

A farm animal and a dirty man are two different meanings, therefore, the meaning of pig clearly changed based on context. Your argument is that the second meaning (a dirty man) is gotten by considering the characteristics of the farm animal (the first meaning), so it's an extension of the first meaning. And that is absolutely correct. However, this extension is a change nevertheless. Otherwise, you'd be saying Mr. Okafor is literally the animal (which isn't logical).

And I mentioned that for both of us to agree on the connotative meaning of pig (dirty), we must share some form of group or classification in which the word "pig" is associated with dirt. In Western Europe, for example, a pig mostly refers to someone who is greedy or unkind. In a different community, a pig refers to a man aroused by sniffing armpits, underwears, etc (and this isn't what I was calling Mr. Okafor).

Please, tell me it's clear now.

Sir thanks once again.. I totally understand from your own perspective but I don't think you see things from mine..

Let me use your examples to explain a little further. When you called mr. Okafor a pig, by common sense, we can look at Mr. Okafor being a human he is, and quickly know even without you literally saying "Mr. Okafor behaves like a pig" to know that you were referring to the connotative meaning of the word "pig". So in this case like you rightly pointed out, the literal meaning of "pig" is animal which would not be logical and appropriate to use in its "literal term".
But this word "pig" also has a connotative meaning and based on the characteristis of a pig, which is not unrelated to its dennotative meaning, there's no where in the world you would use the word "pig" whether connotatively or dennotatively, to refer to "Cleanliness" or to "A clean person"..

The characteristics of a noun in this case "pig", is what makes it a pig and by extension, defines its connotative and denotative meaning.. The connotative meaning of "pig" is not unrelated to its denotative meaning.. In this case, one of the primary definitions of a pig is that, it uses its snot to search for food in the ground and that act alone its not related to classy nor clean.. But it's rather seen as dirty.. Now look up the synonyms of dirty and tell me if its not related to "all" the examples you have up there... Infact, look up the top 20 synonyms of the word "pig" and tell me if it's unrelated to your examples... Pigs as we know, does not sweat so they swallow mud to cool down... The act of swallowing mud is not a good one na!

My point is, the connotative meanings of "pig" does not change its denotative meaning..
And if you would agree with me, the connotative and denotative meaning of a word is what makes up the word.. Hence we can't just take its donnotative meaning and throw out its connotative.

Below are picture references..

Agbegbaorogboye:

Buga in Yoruba street language does not mean inflated, boastful or proud. You're not a Yoruba from the way you keep mixing up the meaning of words. Buga was not made popular by Kiss Daniel. It was actually made popular by Jesse King in that his album which he sang for his mother. Most Yorubas are familiar with that album. It was also popular in Lagos in the early 2000s. Buga means to intimidate your adversaries or show confidence in the face of despair. I'm sure you'll agree pride means something else entirely.

Now to the matter of gazelle. Gazelle (Egbin in Yoruba) is not used to denote pride in Yoruba idioms. It is actually used to denote beauty. Note that gazelle is the female of antelope (Etu). Here's a Yoruba poem about the gazelle. Show it to a Yoruba close to you to interpret for you and come back to point out where pride is mentioned in the poem.

Thanks for your submit.. I really tire for that Ihordspy guy.. How can he say that tinubu was referring to the horn of the "Gazelle" when he made the statement and not literally the animal itself. And then still in the same write up, contradicted himself by saying, Tinubu was referring to the Gazelles connotative meaning..

Ngwa show us anywhere apart from your brain that the connotative meaning for gazelle is "proud or boastful" he can't.. Instead he's making silly excuses..

Agbegbaorogboye:

Can you give an example of Yoruba folklore or mythology where the gazelle was associated with pride?
Having long horn does not denote pride. Here you go again with false logic. The deer is also known to have long horns. So do cows, and rams, rhinos and even elephants. Yet no one has ever said a cow denotes pride for example.
There's no mention of the word pride in the poem. Don't attribute meanings to a poem you obviously have no knowledge of.
Esther in the Bible was beautiful and so was Vashti. But Vashti was considered proud while Esther was considered humble. Being beautiful does not mean being proud.
Elechi's main character in The Concubine was considered beautiful yet humble while Soyinka's main character in the Lion and The Jewel was also beautiful yet proud.
Beauty and pride are not connected in either literary terms or attributes.

Your connection is simply your imagination.

I can't thank you enough for this cause I don explain tire..

He literally manufactures meaning and forces it on any word of his choice..

Agbegbaorogboye:

Someone growing horn has different meaning depending on usage. For some, it connotes independence. To some, stubbornness while to others pride. So it's totally out of order to claim growing horns simply means pride.

As I've pointed out to you, in Yoruba idioms, the gazelle denotes beauty not pride. Your attempt to connect pride with beauty by virtue of horns is flat out hollow because there's no literary definition in Yoruba that does such.

The peacock is an animal that is both described as proud and beautiful in Yoruba language and it does not have a horn!

You can withdraw. No problem. But consider the importance of cogent research on a subject before taking a position going forward.
It belittles your education and knowledge to make wild claims on something you have not acquired enough knowledge and education.
Stop disgracing Yoruba language and literature.

Okay that's it! .. Meet that woman that sells drink close to your house and take one chilled coca cola...

Agbegbaorogboye:

Lol. You're a dishonest character. When you were called out that gazelle does not have anything to do with pride in English, you claimed it's "we" including Tinubu who use it in that way.
You also claimed to be Yoruba who grew up in mushin and Tinubu is also Yoruba. So it's obvious you're referring to Yorubas as people who use gazelle to denote pride because of its horn.
Or do you by any chance mean such a description actually exist in English lexicon?

That dude ehn .. So you've won the argument with the yoruba meaning so now he wants to switch back to its English meaning..

Ngwa show us any dictionary that has "proud or boastful" as one of the connotative definition for a "Gazelle" him no fit show us..

He's a very proud and dishonest human being in real life... The type who would never accept his fault..

Felixamos:

Ihordspy said it clearly in his post that he was referencing the Peoples Gazette. So if you have any issues, you should be directing it to the peoples gazette..

That I don't support Ihordspy submit dosen't mean I'll let you make false claims against him.. At the end of the day, we're all still Nigerians by birth..

If it were just because of folks like you who are quick to insult with little or no intelligence, myself and pretty much many Nigerians wouldn't have been supporting Peter Obi..

Did I direct this post to you? Where you mentioned in the post?
What's your problem? I don't care who you support Oga.

etrange:
I believe the guy was just trying to defend his preferred candidate against all odds. However, for knowledge sake, it's important to correct something you said here:



The meaning of a noun could actually change based on how it's used in a sentence. The dictionary definition of a word is called the denotative meaning while the meaning it could adopt based on how it is used in a sentence (i.e. the idea associated with the word after considering the surrounding words or the emotions of the speaker) is called the connotative meaning.

When someone says you act like a pig, they are using the word "denotatively". Like you rightly said, it means you exhibit some characteristics of the animal. However, when they say you are a pig, they are using the word connotatively. It has exactly the same meaning as the previous sentence, however, they didn't bother to say "act like"; they said "you are" because they trust the audience to be smart enough to know that being a pig in this context means being dirty (since it's illogical to say a human being is literally a pig). Understanding these terms is very important for effective communication. Someone who called you a pig yesterday, for example, cannot come to the court house today to say "but I didn't say you were dirty".

That said, I personally do not agree with the ihordspy guy. Remember, the connotation of a word depends on the cultural context and personal associations, and for the meaning not to get lost in transit, the audience must be on the same page as the speaker (cultural background, profession, age group, social class, etc.). In the English language, the connotative meaning of "gazelle" is "a fast runner". We usually use the word "peacock" to refer to a proud person. Culturally speaking, do Yorubas refer to a proud person as a gazelle? I don't think so. I don't know about the "gazelle horn" saying, but even if Yorubas had such a saying, it would still not be sufficient to use the word in isolation to refer to a proud person. We say "the stubborn fly follows the corps to the grave", but we don't call a stubborn person a fly.

As for the second word, I noticed the guy really searched his Yoruba vocabulary to come up with words that remotely sound like what Tinubu uttered. This was made obvious by the fact that he came up with two words (gara gara and gaga raga) only for him to drop one along the line (gara gara) because it wasn't adding value to his argument. If he was so sure of what Tinubu was saying, he wouldn't have been scrambling for words.

Let's even assume "gazelle" refers to a proud person and "gaga raga" means proud, wouldn't one of them suffice in the sentence? OK, it's not a crime to use both together, but would Tinubu actually use a Yoruba adjective to qualify an English noun?

Honestly, it would have been better if the defender didn't say anything.

Oga, you're wrong.
The denotataive meaning of words are used explicitly. For instance:
1) The pig is dirty.
2) A pig is a domestic animal.

Both linguistic uses are denotative or explicit code use (note here that language is referred to as agreed code where speakers use some particular names for referents. Hence, language is arbitrary.) So, in the first sentence (1), the word class (noun) of pig is depicted by its characteristics of its appearance of the word class (adjective) "dirty". Here, the appearance of the pig is communicated as being dirty, not clean. Hence, the physical description is literal or explicit or denotative. Same as in the second (2) sentence where the noun "pig" is described by its identification in respect to its life and surrounding "domestic animal" (here is a adjectival phrase). Now, let's examine the below sentences:

A) Tunde is a pig
B) Andrew acts or behaves like ( or as) a pig.


From this second part, the two examples clearly show the implicit, or connotative or literary aspect of the word class (noun) "pig" and its relationship with the two humanly noun characters of Tunde and Andrew. The aspect of their physical state, the dirtiness of pig is used to refer to how they live. They are humans and not pig, but they share similitude with pig through dirtiness. However, there's a difference in sentence A and B, which is because:

1) SENTENCE A IS A METAPHOR (metaphor doesn't use "as" or "like" when comparing two different things).
2) SENTENCE B IS A SIMILE (simile makes use of "like" or "as" when comparing different things).

The meaning isn't at the literal or denotative or explicit level but at the literary, or connotative or implicit level.

SHALOM!

jayworld15:



Oga, you're wrong.
The denotataive meaning of words are used explicitly. For instance:
1) The pig is dirty.
2) A pig is a domestic animal.

Both linguistic uses are denotative or explicit code use (note here that language is referred to as agreed code where speakers use some particular names for referents. Hence, language is arbitrary.) So, in the first sentence (1), the word class (noun) of pig is depicted by its characteristics of its appearance of the word class (adjective) "dirty". Here, the appearance of the pig is communicated as being dirty, not clean. Hence, the physical description is literal or explicit or denotative. Same as in the second (2) sentence where the noun "pig" is described by its identification in respect to its life and surrounding "domestic animal" (here is a noun phrase). Now, let's examine the below sentences:

A) Tunde is a pig
B) Andrew acts or behaves like ( or as) a pig.


From this second part, the two examples clearly show the implicit, or connotative or literary aspect of the word class (noun) "pig" and its relationship with the two humanly noun characters of Tunde and Andrew. The aspect of their physical state, the dirtiness of pig is used to refer to how they live. They are humans and not pig, but they share similitude with pig through dirtiness. However, there's a difference in sentence A and B, which is because:

1) SENTENCE A IS A METAPHOR (metaphor doesn't use "as" or "like" when comparing two different things).
2) SENTENCE B IS A SIMILE (simile makes use of "like" or "as" when comparing different things).

The meaning isn't at the literal or denotative or explicit level but at the literary, or connotative or implicit level.

SHALOM!

Thanks for your wonderful submit Sir..

Chai!! see grammar everywhere.

I no believe say Nairalanders Sabi book like this!!

I don't understand these Tinubu urchins at all.. They just want sane Nigerians to take anything they say hook,line and sinker.. Tinubu urchins are touts,thugs and miscreants. I spit on their stupidly. Tueh!

Felixamos:

Thanks for your wonderful submit Sir..

You're welcome, brother.

bjtinz:
Chai!! see grammar everywhere.

I no believe say Nairalanders Sabi book like this!!

Fora should be places for edutainment purposes. So, nairaland, like any other ones, is no exception. I hope you understand

Felixamos:


Sir thanks once again.. I totally understand from your own perspective but I don't think you see things from mine..

Let me use your examples to explain a little further. When you called mr. Okafor a pig, by common sense, we can look at Mr. Okafor being a human he is, and quickly know even without you literally saying "Mr. Okafor behaves like a pig" to know that you were referring to the connotative meaning of the word "pig". So in this case like you rightly pointed out, the literal meaning of "pig" is animal which would not be logical and appropriate to use in its "literal term".
But this word "pig" also has a connotative meaning and based on the characteristis of a pig, which is not unrelated to its dennotative meaning, there's no where in the world you would use the word "pig" whether connotatively or dennotatively, to refer to "Cleanliness" or to "A clean person"..

The characteristics of a noun in this case "pig", is what makes it a pig and by extension, defines its connotative and denotative meaning.. The connotative meaning of "pig" is not unrelated to its denotative meaning.. In this case, one of the primary definitions of a pig is that, it uses its snot to search for food in the ground and that act alone its not related to classy nor clean.. But it's rather seen as dirty.. Now look up the synonyms of dirty and tell me if its not related to "all" the examples you have up there... Infact, look up the top 20 synonyms of the word "pig" and tell me if it's unrelated to your examples... Pigs as we know, does not sweat so they swallow mud to cool down... The act of swallowing mud is not a good one na!

My point is, the connotative meanings of "pig" does not change its denotative meaning..
And if you would agree with me, the connotative and denotative meaning of a word is what makes up the word.. Hence we can't just take its donnotative meaning and throw out its connotative.

Below are picture references..

I did not say connotative meaning changes the donnotative meaning. I said the meaning of the word changes based on context. These are two very different statements. The donnotative meaning may never change, but the connotative meaning changes often. And I said that in response to your first post where you said meaning doesn't change (you didn't say donnotative meaning doesn't change). That generic statement is false. The only thing that remains the same is the donnotative meaning. And the claim here is that Tinubu didn't use that word donnotatively, which means it could connotatively mean just about anything (no limit).

Like I said, whether you call it or change or not does not affect the core of my correction which is the fact that knowing the donnotative meaning of a word as well as its characteristics does not mean you'd know the connotations the word may have in different contexts. This is because connotation is not just about the characteristics of the noun but about whatever interpretation the group in question has given to it. Pig may not be associated with cleanliness, but in different groups, it is associated with other things like greed, fetish, wickedness, etc. Snakes are interpreted as "vicious" in some cultures, and as "God" in another. Tortoise is associated with "cunning" in the Igbo culture but not in Europe.

Saying pigs eat with their snouts or whatever doesn't mean a different group cannot ignore that behavior and concentrate on the fact that pigs never poo where they eat or sleep (bet you didn't know that). Pig could even mean "good luck" elsewhere based on some past events in the history of the group. There's absolutely no limit. So it's not about how pig, snails, tortoise or monkeys behave but more about how they are perceived by the group the speaker and the audience belongs. Therefore, the person you're arguing with could easily say that you don’t know the gazelle/pride association because you're not from a certain group (ethnic group, town, etc.). So basing your approach on the dictionary definition and characteristics of gazelle only creates a hole in your argument that can easily be exploited by your opponent, and it looks like he's doing just that.

I've said the same thing a hundred times, but it's obvious you either want to have the last word or just feel like defending your write-up just as much as the person you're arguing with feels obliged to defend Tinubu. Whichever it is, I'm not inclined to continue explaining linguistics to a non linguist who doesn't care about the knowledge. It was a nice chat. Enjoy!

etrange:


That generic statement is false. The only thing that remains the same is the donnotative meaning. And the claim here is that Tinubu didn't use that word donnotatively, which means it could connotatively mean just about anything (no limit).

(bet you didn't know that).

Whichever it is, I'm not inclined to continue explaining linguistics to a non linguist who doesn't care about the knowledge. It was a nice chat. Enjoy!

Your bet is wrong Sir. I did my research and I know those facts about Pigs.

To the topic, below were my exact words:
From my little understanding of English Language, I know for a fact that the usage of a “noun” in a sentence does not change it’s meaning.
If for instance I say; he acts like a “dog”, it simply means he exhibit’s some or all the characteristics of a “dog”. It doesn't give the noun; “dog” a new meaning in the sentence as ihordspy was trying to do with “gazelle”.

Our argument is, a noun can not connotatively mean anything(like you wrote up there). whatever meaning it has connotatively, must somehow be related to it denotatively.. You are yet to site any dictionary reference to your claim as I have on different occasions.

There's no way you'll say that a word in English Language, could mean just anything connotatively(no limit).. Like i could just come up to make any statement and tie the meaning to whichever word I so dim fit in the name of referring to the "connotative meaning"? And I should take this concept in without any reference whatsoever?

Take for instance, I make a statement like;

"you are a chair". With emphasis on the noun; "chair".. I could spin up my own connotative meaning to "chair" because according to you, chair could mean anything.. Maybe something like; I called you a chair because you are "patient". And a chair can mean "patient" connotatively because it's always there, waiting on someone to sit on it.. Would you seriously buy that crap?
I couldn't even bend my brain to think of a worst instance as in the case of a "gazelle".. If this argument was based on a non English word, I probably would have budged a long time ago. But this is English and I have my references..

According to dictionary.com, the connotative meaning of a word is drawn from the inspiration of its denotative meaning. In other words, it's not a stand alone definition like you're trying to paint it..

I've posted multiple screenshots to backup my claim, why don't you do the same? My aim is to learn and if you're right, of course I'll admit my error.. Please take your time to read the text in the screenshots attached below. And if you still don't agree, please post your own pictures from a reliable source.. At least that way we can both be sure we're learning from a very credible source and not based off of someone's random assumptions..

Lastly, I'm not just making a vague assumption, I'm citing dictionaries.. So it's like you're literally saying you know better than these folks who wrote the dictionaries - since you're yet to reference any source online..

jayworld15:



Oga, you're wrong.
The denotataive meaning of words are used explicitly. For instance:
1) The pig is dirty.
2) A pig is a domestic animal.

Both linguistic uses are denotative or explicit code use (note here that language is referred to as agreed code where speakers use some particular names for referents. Hence, language is arbitrary.) So, in the first sentence (1), the word class (noun) of pig is depicted by its characteristics of its appearance of the word class (adjective) "dirty". Here, the appearance of the pig is communicated as being dirty, not clean. Hence, the physical description is literal or explicit or denotative. Same as in the second (2) sentence where the noun "pig" is described by its identification in respect to its life and surrounding "domestic animal" (here is a adjectival phrase). Now, let's examine the below sentences:

A) Tunde is a pig
B) Andrew acts or behaves like ( or as) a pig.


From this second part, the two examples clearly show the implicit, or connotative or literary aspect of the word class (noun) "pig" and its relationship with the two humanly noun characters of Tunde and Andrew. The aspect of their physical state, the dirtiness of pig is used to refer to how they live. They are humans and not pig, but they share similitude with pig through dirtiness. However, there's a difference in sentence A and B, which is because:

1) SENTENCE A IS A METAPHOR (metaphor doesn't use "as" or "like" when comparing two different things).
2) SENTENCE B IS A SIMILE (simile makes use of "like" or "as" when comparing different things).

The meaning isn't at the literal or denotative or explicit level but at the literary, or connotative or implicit level.

SHALOM!

Hhmm... You did not really write anything that directly contradicts what I said. It seems you were more interested in showcasing your knowledge, and that's impressive. However, here is an explanation that might clear things up for you. Connotation is about the feeling or understanding evoked by a word in a sentence. This, like I said, is based on many things things like past events, the characteristics of the word in question, religious beliefs, etc. Metaphor, on the other hand, is the use of a word or phrase to refer to something that may not necessarily invoke a direct similarity between the word or phrase used and the thing described without the use of the words "like" or "as".

However, here is the overlap, 99% of the time, metaphors themselves are based on connotations (this is a common knowledge in linguistics and you can read it up in any textbook or online resource). If I say "death is a bottomless pit", it is a metaphor as well as a connotation. This because the expression "bottomless pit" connotes "unknown end or dangers", so we aren't talking about the actual pit but what it connotes. Therefore, "Tunde is pig" is a metaphor based on the connotation of pig as a dirty animal. So that it is a metaphor doesn't make it less of a connotation because at the end of the day, Tunde isn't literally a pig but a dirty human. Now, if you're translating that statement to a different language, you'd have to replace pig with any animal that that culture uses to depict dirtiness (i.e. another word that connotes dirtiness in that culture). This possible change of animal simply shows that meaning "dirty human" is what we're trying to guard and not "pig". Again, not all connotations are expressed as metaphors.

So the point here is that connotative meanings change based on different factors like social group or era. So arguing from the angle that gazelle doesn't mean pride will only give the other guy an easy way out because he'd simply say you wouldn't know because you're not from a specific place.

etrange:



So the point here is that connotative meanings change based on different factors like social group or era. So arguing from the angle that gazelle doesn't mean pride will only give the other guy an easy way out because he'd simply say you wouldn't know because you're not from a specific place.

Can I say; "you are stupid" and then tell you the meaning is; you walk graciously? Knowing fully well that both the connotative related meanings in the dictionary and the denotative meaning of "stupid" have absolutely nothing to do with "gracious"?

And also taking into consideration, that stupid is an English word and I never said anything like me referring to its meaning in my local dialect. Infact, there's no local dialect that I know of that would interpret "stupid" as gracious...

I wish there was a better way I could explain it to you..

Felixamos:


Your bet is wrong Sir. I did my research and I know those facts about Pigs.

To the topic, below were my exact words:
From my little understanding of English Language, I know for a fact that the usage of a “noun” in a sentence does not change it’s meaning.
If for instance I say; he acts like a “dog”, it simply means he exhibit’s some or all the characteristics of a “dog”. It doesn't give the noun; “dog” a new meaning in the sentence as ihordspy was trying to do with “gazelle”.

Our argument is, a noun can not connotatively mean anything(like you wrote up there). whatever meaning it has connotatively, must somehow be related to it denotatively.. You are yet to site any dictionary reference to your claim as I have on different occasions.

There's no way you'll say that a word in English Language, could mean just anything connotatively(no limit).. Like i could just come up to make any statement and tie the meaning to whichever word I so dim fit in the name of referring to the "connotative meaning"? And I should take this concept in without any reference whatsoever?

Take for instance, I make a statement like;

"you are a chair". With emphasis on the noun; "chair".. I could spin up my own connotative meaning to "chair" because according to you, chair could mean anything.. Maybe something like; I called you a chair because you are "patient". And a chair can mean "patient" connotatively because it's always there, waiting on someone to sit on it.. Would you seriously buy that crap?
I couldn't even bend my brain to think of a worst instance as in the case of a "gazelle".. If this argument was based on a non English word, I probably would have budged a long time ago. But this is English and I have my references..

According to dictionary.com, the connotative meaning of a word is drawn from the inspiration of its denotative meaning. In other words, it's not a stand alone definition like you're trying to paint it..

I've posted multiple screenshots to backup my claim, why don't you do the same? My aim is to learn and if you're right, of course I'll admit my error.. Please take your time to read the text in the screenshots attached below. And if you still don't agree, please post your own pictures from a reliable source.. At least that way we can both be sure we're learning from a very credible source and not based off of someone's random assumptions..

Hhmm... Bro, I said when it comes to denotative meaning, there is no limit. This is because it is a feeling a word creates in the mind of the listener or reader based on thier specific circumstances, and this could be anything. Denotatively, a chair is a piece of furniture. But to a group of people, a chair could mean "a leader" because they associate it with the word "chairman". To others, it could mean "a prostitute" because they interpret as something that different people sit on. So the connotation of a chair is based on the interpretation of the people (the speaker and the listener) and like I said, you have to belong to thier group to have a common interpretation with them. Otherwise, you'd either understand something else entirely or just say it doesn't make. I am not saying this is the case with gazelle, but this is a valid argument present by the other party.

I didn't make reference to any website because anyone can write and upload things online. And the things you posted are subject to multiple interpretations that could easily make this an endless chat. As someone that has studied languages at multiple levels, I believe I am as much an authority in the field as those writers you are referencing. But for the sake of a peaceful conversation, I'll give you a good reference from a reputable author. Below is an extract from the book The Mind At Work by Richard F. Taflinger, PhD (Chapter 7). Notice how he said that connotative meaning of "snake" depends on the individual's perception of snake. And for spiders, he said that whichever responds you have to the word is your individual connotation of the word. Therefore, effective communication is only achieved when the group of people discussing have a similar response to the word in question (again this response may be based on the characteristics of the word like you said or just past events). And if you don't belong to this group, you'd be an odd man out.

etrange:


Hhmm... Bro, I said when it comes to denotative meaning, there is no limit. This is because it is a feeling a word creates in the mind of the listener or reader based on thier specific circumstances, and this could be anything. Denotatively, a chair is a piece of furniture. But to a group of people, a chair could mean "a leader" because they associate it with the word "chairman". To others, it could mean "a prostitute" because they interpret as something that different people sit on. So the connotation of a chair is based on the interpretation of the people (the speaker and the listener) and like I said, you have to belong to thier group to have a common interpretation with them. Otherwise, you'd either understand something else entirely or just say it doesn't make. I am not saying this is the case with gazelle, but this is a valid argument present by the other party.

I didn't make reference to any website because anyone can write and upload things online. And the things you posted are subject to multiple interpretations that could easily make this an endless chat. As someone that has studied languages at multiple levels, I believe I am as much an authority in the field as those writers you are referencing. But for the sake of a peaceful conversation, I'll give you a good reference from a reputable author. Below is an extract from the book The Mind At Work by Richard F. Taflinger, PhD (Chapter 7). Notice how he said that connotative meaning of "snake" depends on the individual's perception of snake. And for spiders, he said that whichever responds you have to the word is your individual connotation of the word. Therefore, effective communication is only achieved when the group of people discussing have a similar response to the word in question (again this response may be based on the characteristics of the word like you said or just past events). And if you don't belong to this group, you'd be an odd man out.

Again, thanks.. I've probably not studied English to the level you have "yet" hence why I'm referencing dictionaries(specifically) not just any write up..

With all due respect, you're the one stretching this argument because you've failed to agree to the fact that; even though the connotation of a word is subjective to its user, it must still however be related in one way or the other to its denotative meaning.. And I've sighted dictionary.com and Cambridge as my reference..

The article you shared does not state anywhere that a word can have a "connotative" meaning completely different and unrelated to its denotative meaning..
This is the definition of connotation by dictionary.com: the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning:

Felixamos:


Can I say; "you are stupid" and then tell you the meaning is; you walk graciously? Knowing fully well that both the connotative related meanings in the dictionary and the denotative meaning of "stupid" have absolutely nothing to do with "gracious"?

And also taking into consideration, that stupid is an English word and I never said anything like me referring to its meaning in my local dialect. Infact, there's no local dialect that I know of that would interpret "stupid" as gracious...

I wish there was a better way I could explain it to you..

See language is far more complex than a yes or no analysis. But there's something I've always mentioned which you're completely ignoring. That is "common group or classification". If you say "you are stupid" to me, I wouldn't think it means I walk graciously, not just because of the dictionary definition, but also because you and I do not belong to a common group where "stupid" could imply "walking graciously" (based on religion, past events or anything). In other words, not our language, our culture, the English or anything we have in common creates that tie in my mind.


I modified this post to remove my example and make it shorter.

Felixamos:


Again, thanks.. I've probably not studied English to the level you have "yet" hence why I'm referencing dictionaries(specifically) not just any write up..

With all due respect, you're the one stretching this argument because you've failed to agree to the fact that; even though the connotation of a word is subjective to its user, it must still however be related in one way or the other to its denotative meaning.. And I've sighted dictionary.com and Cambridge as my reference..

The article you shared does not state anywhere that a word can have a "connotative" meaning completely different and unrelated to its denotative meaning..
This is the definition of connotation by dictionary.com: the associated or secondary meaning of a word or expression in addition to its explicit or primary meaning:

You are missing the bone of contention.

It works alongside the dennotative meaning because it takes it roots from that meaning, but it could be different based on different contexts. I keep repeating myself, I never said otherwise. I said while denotative meaning remains the same, connotative meaning changes based on circumstances. The point here being that gazelle could actually mean "proud" if the animal is associated with pride based on where Tinubu comes from.

You said I'm the one stretching the chat but you've been changing the goal post. You said meaning don't change, I said meanings change and what remains the same is the denotative meaning. You said I can't tell connotative meanings have not limit and I proved to they literally have no limits. Now you're saying connotations take thier roots from the denotative meaning, which something I have said myself more than a million times already. It is becoming a strawman's argument because you're not even addressing the core message: gazelle could connote proud if the animal is associated with pride where Tinubu comes from. That is the core of the message here and that is the loophole in your argument.

etrange:


See language is far more complex than a yes or no analysis. But there's something I've always mentioned which you're completely ignoring. That is "common group or classification". If you say "you are stupid" to me, I wouldn't think it means I walk graciously, not just because of the dictionary definition, but also because you and I do not belong to a common group where "stupid" could imply "walking graciously" (based on religion, past events or anything).

Now I'll prove that the connotation of a word can never be unrelated to its denotation at least in English language..

I'll use your example; "bad".

The first picture attached to this post is the meaning of the word "bad". And you can see "intense" there as one of its meaning.

The second picture attached is the synonym of the word "intense" and you can see the word "great" there..

Hence your statement about using "bad" in referring to how great of a progrsmmer your brother is, has been validated.. And this validation was done by the same argument I've been saying here which is;

"the connotation of any word must be direct or indirectly related to its denotation" as long as English is concerned(at least)...

I'll honestly be surprised if you would still continue this argument after this clear example..

etrange:


You are missing the bone of contention.

It works alongside the dennotative meaning because it takes it roots from that meaning, but it could be different based on different contexts. I keep repeating myself, I never said otherwise. I said while denotative meaning remains the same, connotative meaning changes based on circumstances. The point here being that gazelle could actually mean "proud" if the animal is associated with pride based on where Tinubu comes from.

You said I'm the one stretching the chat but you've been changing the goal post. You said meaning don't change, I said meanings change and what remains the same is the denotative meaning. You said I can't tell connotative meanings have not limit and I proved to they literally have no limits. Now you're saying connotations take thier roots from the denotative meaning, which something I have said myself more than a million times already. It is becoming a strawman's argument because you're not even addressing the core message: gazelle could connote proud if the animal is associated with pride where Tinubu comes from. That is the core of the message here and that is the loophole in your argument.

I honestly don't want to argue any further. When someone asks you the definition of a word, the first thing that comes to your mind is its denotative meaning..

So I just don't understand you when you said I was changing goal post.. Can you highlight any place in my argument I said the meaning of a "noun" can change in a sentence?

I've always agreed with you that the connotation can have a different meaning from the denotation but they must be related in one way or the other.. Meaning if the word used its a "dog", the meaning connotatively or denotatively can never change from a "dog" into a "spider"...

Has that not been my argument? Where as you on the other hand is arguing that the "dog" could change into a "spider" connotatively depending on where it's used..

Felixamos:


Now I'll prove that the connotation of a word can never be unrelated to its denotation at least in English language..

I'll use your example; "bad".

The first picture attached to this post is the meaning of the word "bad". And you can see "intense" there as one of its meaning.

The second picture attached is the synonym of the word "intense" and you can see the word "great" there..

Hence your statement about using "bad" in referring to how great of a progrsmmer your brother is, has been validated.. And this validation was done by the same argument I've been saying here which is;

"the connotation of any word must be direct or indirectly related to its denotation" as long as English is concerned(at least)...

I'll honestly be surprised if you would still continue this argument after this clear example..

Oh.. lord. I never for once said the connotation is unrelated to denotation. I did not say that. You have totally changed what the argument is.

Listen, I said there's no limit to what a word could connote to a group of people because is not necessarily about the characteristic of the noun in question but could be based on other circumstantial events. For example, if I view pigs as spiritually unclean, it is because Jesus cast demons into them in the Bible. While it is still related to the animal pig, the connotation it has to me is based on a biblical event. Therefore, gazelle could mean "proud" if the animal is associated with pride where Tinubu comes (it doesn't mean it's unrelated to the animal but you have to share thier culture to know that relationship).

Felixamos:


I honestly don't want to argue any further. When someone asks you the definition of a word, the first thing that comes to your mind is its denotative meaning..

So I just don't understand you when you said I was changing goal post.. Can you highlight any place in my argument I said the meaning of a "noun" can change in a sentence?

I've always agreed with you that the connotation can have a different meaning from the denotation but they must be related in one way or the other.. Meaning if the word used its a "dog", the meaning connotatively or denotatively can never change from a "dog" into a "spider"...

Has that not been my argument? Where as you on the other hand is arguing that the "dog" could change into a "spider" connotatively depending on where it's used..

You said meanings don't change, and I said technically, they do. And I explained how connotative meanings do change. You said were referring to denotative meanings. However, gazelle wasn't used denotatively in this case. So what we should be concentrating on is the denotative meaning. You say connotative meanings are not unrelated to denotative meanings, and I'm saying that's good. However, I also said, and I repeat, because a word could connote anything based on individual or group perception of its denotation, gazelle could actually connote "proud" if the animal is associated with proud where Tinubu comes from (just like tortoise is associated with "cunning" in the East). And this creates a loophole in your argument against the other guy. Do you agree with this or not?

Note that this wouldn't mean it's unrelated to the animal because thr connotation could be because of the role the animal usually plays in thier folktales.

etrange:


Oh.. lord. I never for once said the connotation is unrelated to denotation. I did not say that. You have totally changed what the argument is.

Listen, I said there's no limit to what a word could connote to a group of people because is not necessarily about the characteristic of the noun in question but could be based on other circumstantial events. For example, if I view pigs as spiritually unclean, it is because Jesus cast demons into them in the Bible. While it is still related to the animal pig, the connotation it has to me is based on a biblical event. Therefore, gazelle could mean "proud" if the animal is associated with pride where Tinubu comes (it doesn't mean it's unrelated to the animal but you have to share thier culture to know that relationship).

And I'm saying that no matter how infinite the connotation of a word is, it must still be related to its denotative meaning hence you're simply defining another word as in the case of the "gazelle" argument.. A gazelle has no relationship whatsoever to do with "proud or boastful" in any dialect..
Even the Ihordspy changed the argument that it was only the horn of the gazelle that tinubu was referring to. Does that make any sense to you?

Felixamos:

And I'm saying that no matter how infinite the connotation of a word is, it must still be related to its denotative meaning hence you're simply defining another word as in the case of the "gazelle" argument.. A gazelle has no relationship whatsoever to do with "proud or boastful" in any dialect..
Even the Ihordspy changed the argument that it was only the horn of the gazelle that tinubu was referring to. Does that make any sense to you?

If there's no limit, then you can't say "gazelle has no relation whatsoever with "proud"" because you can only speak for the connotation it creates in your mind as someone from a specific region. You can't speak for others. If there's a folklore in your hometown where the animal gazelle is constantly depicted as the proud man in the animal kingdom, and then you're talking to your people in a meeting and say "please, don't be a gazelle", what do you think the animal would connote in that sentence? It would mean "proud" and this doesn't mean it's unrelated to the animal because it took its origin from the way the animal is depicted in your folklore. So if you're not from Tinubu's group, the association may not be that obvious.

See, I'm not saying that is the case. The guy is obviously lying. But my point is, it is an exploitable loophole to say gazelle can never be associated with pride anywhere because it could be. It is a possibility in as much as know for sure that the was just grasping at straws.

etrange:


Hhmm... You did not really write anything that directly contradicts what I said. It seems you were more interested in showcasing your knowledge, and that's impressive. However, here is an explanation that might clear things up for you. Connotation is about the feeling or understanding evoked by a word in a sentence. This, like I said, is based on many things things like past events, the characteristics of the word in question, religious beliefs, etc. Metaphor, on the other hand, is the use of a word or phrase to refer to something that may not necessarily invoke a direct similarity between the word or phrase used and the thing described without the use of the words "like" or "as".

However, here is the overlap, 99% of the time, metaphors themselves are based on connotations (this is a common knowledge in linguistics and you can read it up in any textbook or online resource). If I say "death is a bottomless pit", it is a metaphor as well as a connotation. This because the expression "bottomless pit" connotes "unknown end or dangers", so we aren't talking about the actual pit but what it connotes. Therefore, "Tunde is pig" is a metaphor based on the connotation of pig as a dirty animal. So that it is a metaphor doesn't make it less of a connotation because at the end of the day, Tunde isn't literally a pig but a dirty human. Now, if you're translating that statement to a different language, you'd have to replace pig with any animal that that culture uses to depict dirtiness (i.e. another word that connotes dirtiness in that culture). This possible change of animal simply shows that meaning "dirty human" is what we're trying to guard and not "pig". Again, not all connotations are expressed as metaphors.

So the point here is that connotative meanings change based on different factors like social group or era. So arguing from the angle that gazelle doesn't mean pride will only give the other guy an easy way out because he'd simply say you wouldn't know because you're not from a specific place.

It must have been I quoted you instead of someone. From that guy's point of view, he's wrong and he knows it. The Ihords or whatever name he is is just trying to grapple on the world of sensible people with his insensibility. I speak Yoruba, understand Yoruba and write Yoruba (I emphasize on the language). If he's spoken about "gazelle garagara" as neologism, maybe people would see it from a broad perspective or narrow it to social sarcasm. I could remember "buhari"(noun), "buharify" (verb), etc were constructed by some Nigerians at one time like that (the new words found their way into the comic social parlance of the people at the time, it was understandable how they were formed). I guess I quoted you wrongly instead of the person that put metaphoric sentences as denotative and simile as connotative.

etrange:


You said meanings don't change, and I said technically, they do. And I explained how connotative meanings do change. You said were referring to denotative meanings. However, gazelle wasn't used denotatively in this case. So what we should be concentrating on is the denotative meaning. You say connotative meanings are not unrelated to denotative meanings, and I'm saying that's good. However, I also said, and I repeat, because a word could connote anything based on individual or group perception of its denotation, gazelle could actually connote "proud" if the animal is associated with proud where Tinubu comes from (just like tortoise is associated with "cunning" in the East). And this creates a loophole in your argument against the other guy. Do you agree with this or not?

Note that this wouldn't mean it's unrelated to the animal because thr connotation could be because of the role the animal usually plays in thier folktales.

We wouldn't be having this obvious argument if the dude had said; the connotative definition of Tinubu's "gazelle" was based on a certain folklore in Lagos state.. Rather, he was referring to the connotative definition in English language hence why I had to reference dictionaries..

I would agree with you when the connotative definition of a word is clearly specified to a region the meaning is being referenced to. If that is not done, you would agree with me that It's as good as saying; "no communication was made". It's like speaking yoruba to an American who hasn't even been to Nigeria before and trying to show the American the meaning of the yoruba words in an Oxford dictionary.. How crazy is that?

See the picture attached - that's how it should be..

Felixamos:


We wouldn't be having this obvious argument if the dude had said; the connotative definition of Tinubu's "gazelle" was based on a certain folklore in Lagos state.. Rather, he was referring to the connotative definition in English language hence why I had to reference dictionaries..

I would agree with you when the connotative definition of a word is clearly specified to a region the meaning is being referenced to. If that is not done, you would agree with me that It's as good as saying; "no communication was made". It's like speaking yoruba to an American who hasn't even been to Nigeria before and trying to show the American the meaning of the yoruba words in an Oxford dictionary.. How crazy is that?

See the picture attached - that's how it should be..

The fact that Tinubu cannot turn a human to gazelle already implies he was using the word connotatively. I don't think he needed to say "the connotative meaning..." Besides, he was speaking to a group from a region and if you're not from there, you may not know what gazelle connotes or doesn't connot there. And even if indeed no communication was, that would be a different discussion that favors the person you're arguing with because it would then mean that he didn't just utter meaningless words but just didn't have effective communication. Trust me, you don't want the argument to go in that direction because we all know he uttered meaningless words.

etrange:


But my point is, it is an exploitable loophole to say gazelle can never be associated with pride anywhere because it could be. It is a possibility in as much as know for sure that the was just grasping at straws.

These were my exact words as they were when you quoted it in front page and tried to correct me.

There’s no dictionary anywhere in the world that would define Gazelle as a “boastful or proud animal” and I challenge anybody to prove me wrong.

Please how am I wrong? I clearly said "dictionary".. Or do you know of any dictionary anywhere that defines a gazelle as proud and boastful?

etrange:


The fact that Tinubu cannot turn a human to gazelle already implies he was using the word connotatively. I don't think he needed to say "the connotative meaning..." Besides, he was speaking to a group from a region and if you're not from there, you may not know what gazelle connotes or doesn't connot there. And even if indeed no communication was, that would be a different discussion that favors the person you're arguing with because it would then mean that he didn't just utter meaningless words but just didn't have effective communication. Trust me, you don't want the argument to go in that direction because we all know he uttered meaningless words.

Except that the word gazelle was used together with gagaraga in a single sentence. Hence in order for the sentence to make any sense, you have to be able to harmonize the both words for better understanding of the sentence..

If I say; "I will change you from a dog ogbolo to a resourceful person". Does the sentence make any sense to you?

Of course dog has its meaning and same as ogbolo locally(used for cooking draw soup).. But putting them together the way I did and trying to make a meaning out of the sentence would be nothing short of error.

And in my post which you quoted to correct me, I clearly said and I quote; "
they may have their separate meanings/definitions but putting them together and trying to make an unrelated meaning out of it is a mockery to both English language and the intellect of any right thinking human."

I'll advice you go to the Frontpage and read my post again.. That would save us a lot of argument going forward.. Cause somehow I have this feeling you read the writeup hastily..