Talk:non-lemma

RFV discussion: June 2015
This entry currently has the sole (nominal) sense: I added every English citation I could find from the results yielded by (except this one, which has erroneous bibliographical information) to Citations:non-lemma. All but one of those citations are quasi-adjectival, because they are the hyphenated phrase used attributively; only the second use in the 1995 citation is interpretable (albeit not uncontroversially) as a true noun. Since there are twelve citations at Citations:non-lemma, I suppose that there should be some kind of entry for this term; however, I am unsure how it should be defined. Pinging SemperBlotto, as the entry's creator. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * 1)  Any form of a term that is not a lemma


 * I strongly disagree that the hyphen renders the citations useless for attestation. The hyphen is not a word-linking hyphen, but is rather part of non-. DCDuring TALK 23:37, 1 June 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, but nevertheless, all but one use is in attributive use. How would you define the senses in which those authors use this term? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of citations for the plural non-lemmas at Google Scholar:
 * I'm not sure where these stand as far as being considered durably archived. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of journals are durably archived (something about being a "journal of record"). In the case of taxonomic ones, the nomenclatural codes have always required it- though online journals have tended to satisfy the requirement by donating a few copies to certain libraries. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where these stand as far as being considered durably archived. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of journals are durably archived (something about being a "journal of record"). In the case of taxonomic ones, the nomenclatural codes have always required it- though online journals have tended to satisfy the requirement by donating a few copies to certain libraries. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A lot of journals are durably archived (something about being a "journal of record"). In the case of taxonomic ones, the nomenclatural codes have always required it- though online journals have tended to satisfy the requirement by donating a few copies to certain libraries. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the citations and for pointing me to Google Scholar Search. This sense now has at least four independent citations, so it's verified. It is, however, rare, and I have marked it as such. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That it seems not so strange to us, despite its rarity, even in scholarly literature, is evidence of how far from 'normal' we are in our vocabulary. We are a poor model of 'normal' users. DCDuring TALK 03:32, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * That lexicographers will know lexicography terms seems inevitable, even helpful. And non-lemma is not strange if you know lemma.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Of course, but we are still a poor model of 'normal' users - and should not forget it. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Its rarity (besides its clunkiness) is what prompted me to ask in the Tea Room whether there was another (better, more established) term that carried this sense. Still, at least " + " is pretty transparent as "not [a] lemma" (to most people, not just us). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 11:58, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

RFV passed. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed "non lemma" from alt forms
It appears in one citation but apparently by a NNES. Since non- is a prefix in English, it is hyphenated or unspaced. Equinox ◑ 20:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)