Strength of synonyms

[Photon Guy]

Synonyms are different words that have the same meaning. As I've noticed though, in many cases there are certain synonyms that seem to be stronger than others, another words, some synonyms tend to for some reason or another meet the definition better. An example would be the word "stomach" and the word "tummy." Stomach and tummy are synonyms, they both mean the same thing in that they both define the organ in which food is digested. Of the two words, stomach seems to be stronger. The word stomach seems to meet the definition better than the word tummy.

Another example would be the words man, guy, dude, and fellow. They all mean the same thing and yet the word "male" seems to be stronger than all those words in meeting the definition.

So is it true that some synonyms are stronger than others in meeting the definition? It seems that way.

 

[teechar]

Synonyms are different words that can have the same meaning. As I've noticed, though, in many cases, there are certain synonyms that seem to be stronger than others. [STRIKE]another[/STRIKE] In other words, some synonyms tend to, for some reason or another, [STRIKE]meet[/STRIKE] fit the definition better. An example would be the word "stomach" and the word "tummy." "Stomach" and "tummy" are synonyms; they both mean the same thing in that they both define the organ in which food is digested. Of the two words, "stomach" seems to be stronger. The word "stomach" seems to meet the definition better than the word "tummy."

Another example would be the words "man", "guy", "dude", and "fellow". They all mean the same thing, and yet, the word "male" seems to be stronger than all those other words in meeting the definition.

So is it true that some synonyms are stronger than others in meeting the definition? It seems that way.

I don't know why you've chosen strength as the attribute to examine here.

You also need to consider context to decided which word is more appropriate to use. For example, I can't imagine a judge asking a defendant in court "Did you shoot that dude in the tummy?" By the same token, I think, e.g., a mother is more likely to say to her child "That man has a very big tummy" instead of "That male has an extraordinarily voluminous stomach."

Words can have meanings that overlap (to varying extents), but context is often a factor in considering which alternative we decide to use.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Right. It's very rare for two words to mean exactly the same thing, and those that do are never used in exactly the same way. As Teechar says, it's not just about how strongly you want to say something. It's also about what you mean and whom you're saying it to.

It's mainly a matter of listening to English to learn its subtleties. For instance, male isn't stronger than the other words you listed. As Teechar says, the strongest choice is a matter of context:

- I tried to sell her all of the puppies, but she only wanted the males.
- If you're looking for fun, I'm your guy.
- Dude, what did you do to my bike?
- Which way did you see the man running?
- He was a quick wit and a trustworthy fellow.

 

[Photon Guy]

Right. It's very rare for two words to mean exactly the same thing, and those that do are never used in exactly the same way. As Teechar says, it's not just about how strongly you want to say something. It's also about what you mean and whom you're saying it to.

It's mainly a matter of listening to English to learn its subtleties. For instance, male isn't stronger than the other words you listed. As Teechar says, the strongest choice is a matter of context:

- I tried to sell her all of the puppies, but she only wanted the males.
- If you're looking for fun, I'm your guy.
- Dude, what did you do to my bike?
- Which way did you see the man running?
- He was a quick wit and a trustworthy fellow.

I get what you're saying and you're right that words usually don't mean exactly the same thing although in rare instances they do, take for instance the word "soda" and the word "pop." I will point out this however. The word, "male" is stronger than all those other words that define the gender in that it can meet the definition in all instances which the other words can't. For instance, in the five examples given above you can use male in all of them to describe the subject of the sentence. It might not be the most appropriate word to use in all of the sentences but it at least meets the definition.

 

[GoesStation]

The word, "male" is stronger than all those other words that define the gender in that it can meet the definition in all instances which the other words can't.

You've defined "stronger" to mean more flexible or perhaps broader. I'd stick with precise terms that readers will understand without needing additional explanations.

 

[Photon Guy]

You've defined "stronger" to mean more flexible or perhaps broader. I'd stick with precise terms that readers will understand without needing additional explanations.

OK broader would be a better way to describe it. The words boy and man are both interchangeable with the word male but they're not interchangeable with each other.

 

[emsr2d2]

"Boy" would only be interchangeable with "male" in a sentence where "boy" is the correct term.

 

[teechar]

The words "boy" and "man" are both interchangeable with the word "male"

That's incorrect.
For example,

The male Mandarin Duck is one of the most spectacular looking birds. :tick:
The man Mandarin Duck is one of the most spectacular looking birds.

The boy Mandarin Duck is one of the most spectacular looking birds.

 

[emsr2d2]

And it doesn't work in "I need a male to male connector adapter for one of my devices".

 

[Tdol]

Man and boy are not synonyms, there may be a bit of crossover, but that's it. They share the same gender, but you wouldn't say that the sex of a baby was man.

 

[Photon Guy]

That's incorrect.
For example,

The male Mandarin Duck is one of the most spectacular looking birds. :tick:
The man Mandarin Duck is one of the most spectacular looking birds.

The boy Mandarin Duck is one of the most spectacular looking birds.

What I meant is that the word male can always be substituted for the words boy or man but its not true vice versa. As your example with the ducks, you could describe a duck as being male but you couldn't describe a duck as being a man or boy, except perhaps a male duck that's a baby could be described as a boy. Just like the example used by the poster Charlie Bernstein earlier in this thread about the puppies, "I tried to sell her all of the puppies, but she only wanted the males." You could also say "I tried to sell her all of the puppies, but she only wanted the boys," and that would also be correct. With baby animals, the words boy and girl are often used to describe the gender of the animal. The point is though, any time you use the words boy or man you could also substitute it with the word male and it would still be accurate but the same is not true the other way around as with your example with the ducks and usually the words boy and man cannot be exchanged with each other. With some rare exceptions you could not call something or someone both a boy and a man since there is a difference, one being a child the other being an adult.

 

[emsr2d2]

A baby male duck isn't a boy; it's a [male] duckling.

 

[teechar]

What I meant is that the word "male" can always be substituted for the words "boy" or "man" but [STRIKE]its[/STRIKE] not true vice versa.

No! That is categorically false.

'Here's a good boy', said the mother to her child.

'Here's a good male', said the mother to her child.

The man next door is very noisy.

The male next door is very noisy.

 

[Photon Guy]

No! That is categorically false.

'Here's a good boy', said the mother to her child.

'Here's a good male', said the mother to her child.

The man next door is very noisy.

The male next door is very noisy.

What I meant is that both the words boy and man can be defined as male. "Here's a good male" might be less grammatically correct than "Here's a good boy" but the fact remains that a boy is be defined as a male. A male can be a boy but isn't always depending on how you use it. A boy, on the other hand, is always a male. Same thing with your example of the man next door. The man is also and always a male but a male isn't necessarily a man.

 

[Photon Guy]

A baby male duck isn't a boy; it's a [male] duckling.

A baby male duck could be called a boy. When somebody is getting a new pet, a cat or a dog for instance, they might say at the pet shop or wherever they're getting the pet that they want a boy or a girl. When I got a kitten the woman who I got it from, at her house where she kept all the kittens looking for homes, she told me, "this one's a boy, this one's a girl," ect. Now lets say somebody is getting a pet duckling, they could say that they want a male duckling or they could say they want a boy. Its not uncommon for somebody to say they're looking for a boy or a girl when they're getting a pet.

 

[emsr2d2]

A baby male duck could be called a boy. When somebody is getting a new pet, a cat or a dog for instance, they might say at the pet shop or wherever they're getting the pet that they want a boy or a girl. When I got a kitten​, the woman who I got it from, at her house where she kept all the kittens looking for homes, [STRIKE]she[/STRIKE] told me, "This one's a boy, this one's a girl," [STRIKE]ect[/STRIKE] etc. Now let's say somebody is getting a pet duckling, they could say that they want a male duckling or they could say they want a boy. It's not uncommon for somebody to say they're looking for a boy or a girl when they're getting a pet.

See my corrections above. It's not uncommon in the UK for people to refer to the pets they already own as "boy" or "girl" but I disagree that people would use those terms for wild animals like ducks.

 

[jutfrank]

Photon Guy -- I think that you may be unclear as to the difference between meaning and use.

Think of it like this: people use words to express what they mean to communicate. You could say that words don't mean, people mean:

What I meant is...

So words are only really synonymous (if at all!) in language in use. That is, spoken or written language as used by people, for a reason, and in context.

Stomach and tummy are synonyms, they both mean the same thing in that they both define the organ in which food is digested.

Well, only in language in use. Both of these words are typically used to refer to the digestive organ, but they are both also used to refer to a part of the abdomen. If we say She has a fat tummy, we don't mean that her digestive organ is fat. And if we say The baby's in Mummy's tummy, we don't mean that Mummy is growing a baby in her gastrointestinal tract. It's about what we mean when we use words. Words have uses, not meanings.

Another example would be the words man, guy, dude, and fellow. They all mean the same thing and yet the word "male" seems to be stronger than all those words in meeting the definition.

You can't define a word. You may attempt to define things with words. (This is one of the problems encountered by dictionary compilers.)

The point is though, any time you use the words boy or man you could also substitute it with the word male and it would still be accurate but the same is not true the other way around as with your example with the ducks and usually the words boy and man cannot be exchanged with each other.

As people on this thread have suggested, it is not true that you can substitute boy and man with male when it comes to language in use. I think that you are thinking here about the concepts of 'boyness' and 'maleness' rather than the words themselves. Words are instances of language whereas concepts are instances of thought.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I get what you're saying and you're right that words usually don't mean exactly the same thing although in rare instances they do, take for instance the word "soda" and the word "pop."

When you're talking about carbonated soft drinks, there are big regional differences. Which you use says where you're from.

I will point out this however. The word, "male" is stronger than all those other words that define the gender in that it can meet the definition in all instances which the other words can't. For instance, in the five examples given above you can use male in all of them to describe the subject of the sentence. It might not be the most appropriate word to use in all of the sentences but it at least meets the definition.

In English, there's nothing inherently weak or strong about any word. The most appropriate word is the strongest. The context decides what word choice is strongest - not the word itself.

I hope that helps.

 

[Photon Guy]

So I should've said broadness of synonyms instead of strength of synonyms. As its been pointed out, one word is not stronger than another word although it might be broader. The word male is the most broad word when describing the gender. Its not stronger or weaker than any other word for the gender such as boy, man, guy, dude, fellow, ect. but its the most broad. So instead of stronger its broader. I stand corrected.

 

[emsr2d2]

So I should've said broadness of synonyms instead of strength of synonyms. As it's been pointed out, one word is not stronger than another word although it might be broader. The word "male" is the most broad word when describing the gender. It​'s not stronger or weaker than any other word for the gender such as boy, man, guy, dude, fellow, [STRIKE]ect.[/STRIKE] etc but it's the most broad. So instead of stronger it's broader. I stand corrected.

Photon Guy, this isn't the first time I've corrected "its" to "it's" and "ect." to "etc" in your posts. Take care with those.