You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

gmzamz comments on Open Thread, May 19 - 25, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion

2 Post author: somnicule 19 May 2014 04:49AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (289)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: gmzamz 20 May 2014 04:23:09AM *  5 points [-]

Regarding networks; is there a colloquially accepted term for when one has a ton of descriptive words (furry, bread sized, purrs when you pet them, claws, domesticated, hunts mice, etc) but you do not have the colloquially accepted term (cat) for the network? I have searched high and low and the most I have found is reverse defintion search, but no actual term.

Comment author: Emily 20 May 2014 09:34:19AM 4 points [-]

Not quite what you're looking for I think, but if someone is having that problem they might have anomic aphasia.

Comment author: RichardKennaway 20 May 2014 05:59:14AM 4 points [-]

"Not having a word for it"? Or in the technical vocabulary of linguistics, the concept is not "lexicalised".

Comment author: knb 21 May 2014 01:31:44AM 3 points [-]

Sounds kind of like the Tip of the Tongue Effect

Comment author: [deleted] 21 May 2014 05:17:58PM 1 point [-]

That's a particular subcase of it, when you know that there's a word for that concept and you've heard it but you can't remember it. But other times it's more like “there should be a word for this”.

Comment author: satt 21 May 2014 10:36:16PM 1 point [-]

But other times it's more like “there should be a word for this”.

However, that's distinct from what gmzamz asked about: occasions when "you do not have the colloquially accepted term" for something.

Comment author: satt 21 May 2014 12:59:16AM 1 point [-]

I've heard "anomia" and "being able to talk all around the idea of an [X] but not the word [X] itself".