{"id":10037,"date":"2012-01-02T16:00:46","date_gmt":"2012-01-02T16:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/01\/02\/neologisms-paleologisms-and-grellings-paradox\/"},"modified":"2012-01-02T16:00:46","modified_gmt":"2012-01-02T16:00:46","slug":"neologisms-paleologisms-and-grellings-paradox","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/01\/02\/neologisms-paleologisms-and-grellings-paradox\/","title":{"rendered":"Neologisms, Paleologisms, and Grelling&#8217;s Paradox"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">&#39;Neologism&#39; is not a new word, but an old word. Hence, &#39;neologism&#39; is not a neologism. &#39;Paleologism&#39; is not a word at all; or at least it is not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. But it ought to be a word, so I hereby introduce it. Who is going to stop me? Having read it and understood it, you have willy-nilly validated its introduction and are complicit with me.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Now that we have &#39;paleologism&#39; on the table, and an unvast conspiracy going, we are in a position to see that &#39;neologism&#39; is a paleologism, while &#39;paleologism&#39; is a neologism. Since the neologism\/paleologism <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">classification is both exclusive (every word is either one or the other )and exhaustive (no word is neither), it follows that &#39;neologism&#39; is not a neologism, and &#39;paleologism&#39; is not a paleologism. <\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Such words are called heterological: they are not instances of the properties they express. &#39;Useless&#39; and &#39;monosyllabic&#39; are other examples of&#0160; heterological expressions in that &#39;useless&#39; is not useless and <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">&#39;monosyllabic&#39; is not monosyllabic. A term that is not heterological is called autological. Examples include &#39;short&#39; and &#39;polysyllabic.&#39;&#0160;&#0160;&#39;Short&#39; is short and &#39;polysyllabic&#39; is polysyllabic. Autological terms are instances of the properties they express.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Now ask yourself this question: Is &#39;heterological&#39; heterological? Given that the heterological\/autological classification is exhaustive, &#39;heterological&#39; must be either heterological or else autological. Now <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">if the former, then &#39;heterological&#39; is not an instance of the property it expresses, namely, the property of not being an instance of the property it expresses. But this implies that &#39;heterological&#39; is <\/span><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">autological. On the other hand, if &#39;heterological&#39; is autological, then it is an instance of the property it expresses, namely the property of not being an instance of the property it expresses. But this implies that &#39;heterological&#39; is heterological.<\/span><\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: justify;\"><span style=\"font-family: georgia,palatino;\">Therefore, &#39;heterological&#39; is heterological if and only if it is not. This contradiction is known in the trade as Grelling&#39;s Paradox. It is named after Kurt Grelling, who presented it in 1908.<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>&#39;Neologism&#39; is not a new word, but an old word. Hence, &#39;neologism&#39; is not a neologism. &#39;Paleologism&#39; is not a word at all; or at least it is not listed in the Oxford English Dictionary. But it ought to be a word, so I hereby introduce it. Who is going to stop me? Having read &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/2012\/01\/02\/neologisms-paleologisms-and-grellings-paradox\/\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;Neologisms, Paleologisms, and Grelling&#8217;s Paradox&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,108,80],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-10037","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-language-matters","category-logica-docens","category-paradoxes"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10037","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10037"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10037\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10037"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10037"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/maverickphilosopher.blog\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10037"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}