Words That Refer to Themselves

Post Reply New Topic

There should be several words that properly refer to themselves, such as

1. Noun is a noun.
2. Short is short.
3. English is English.

More, please.

word ( is itsself a 'word').

ugly is a rather uneasthetic and unmelodic sounding word.

^I had this ugly issue in mind but I thought it wouldn't be possible in English. Thank you for letting me know it is.

Then, there are
– understandable is understandable
– polysyllabic is polysyllabic
– green is green
– term is a term

More, please.

Four has four letters.

Abbr. is an abbreviation. (this one's not really a word, just an abbreviation)

Oxymoron, which literally means "a wise stupidity" is itsself an oxymoron.

Probably the best example of a self referential word.

Oxymoron: dull-sharp, but still

Autological, perhaps?

Yes, autological and heterological are words that readily lead to paradoxes if applied to themselves. Anyways,
pentasyllabic is pentasyllabic.

"Short," is a fairly short word, and, "written," when written is a written word.

Accordingly, read can be a read word (past participle).

"Existent," exists, and "plosive," "nasal," "sibilant," and "fricative," might also be considered autological.

Oranges are orange.

Correctly-spelled is correctly-spelled.

A paradox follows if we try the opposite, wrongly-spelled is as correctly spelled as any other correctly-spelled word. If we try to force in some wrong spelling, like

Wronggly-spelled is wronggly-spelled,

we should first define what wrongg means. Suppose we agreed upon the definition "Wrongg spelling means any spelling that deviates from standard English spelling", then wronggly-spelled would be good English and the word itself would be correctly spelled. This raises a philosphical problem: how is it that correct and wrong are not symmetrical? We can apply the property of being correct to correct, but we cannot apply the property of being wrong to wrong. The answer must hinge on our dealing with words, not what lies behind those words. It's one thing to talk about cats, and another thing to talk about cats.

Well, existent is certainly existent, but the whole word sibilant, for example, is not sibilant. Just the first phoneme is. Sorry for being pedantic

Not a problem, it could probably be better described as minor onomatopoeia.

Perhaps, "sesquipedalian," could be said to be autological, considering its low frequency of usage due to common perceptions about long words.

Well, yes and no. If you are speaking of the fruit that are colored orange, then it is not what this thread is about. But if your reply is slightly modified, thus

Orange is orange,

then it is, namely, about words that describe themselves. Again, sorry for being pedantic but it is in my genes.

Dyslexia has a complicated spelling.