Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!usenet.eel.ufl.edu!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!hobbes.cc.uga.edu!cssun.mathcs.emory.edu!emory!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!news.sprintlink.net!news.indirect.com!bud.indirect.com!stevemac
From: stevemac@bud.indirect.com (Steve MacGregor)
Subject: 'lexeme'
Message-ID: <D8sp0I.DK8@indirect.com>
Sender: usenet@indirect.com (Internet Direct Admin)
Organization: People Enjoying Tasty Animals (PETA)
Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 22:26:41 GMT
X-Disclaimer: I'm not overweight; I'm underheight!
Lines: 27

According to C1737016@UMSLVMA.UMSL.EDU:

>Would it be correct to say that
>1.) 'thing'
>2.) 'entity'
>3.) 'object'
>(and possibly others) are the same lexeme? My impression is that they have
>the same "meaning" but lack _lexical_ meaning.

  No, they're synonymns (or nearly so), but are not the same =word=.

  MWCD10 gives ...

    lex eme :: a meaningful linguistic unit that is an item in the 
    dictionary of a language.

... so these are separate lexemes with similar meanings.  The words "boy",
"boys", "boy's", and "boys'" are all the same lexeme, as are "good,
better, best", "sing, sang, sung", "go, went, gone", and the Latin verb
"fero, ferre, tuli, latus". 


-- 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
          http://ftp.indirect.com/www/stevemac/ttt-hejmo.html
   This environment-friendly post consists entirely of recycled bits.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
