A quick Lexicography question

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

A quick Lexicography question - in a dictionary there is often more than one definition attached to a single word. These different definitions seem to appear as bold numbers.

For example, if one were to visit this site accessed 10th February 2012 from Apprehension | Define Apprehension at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/apprehension)

Apprehension
ap·pre·hen·sion/ˌæprɪˈhɛnʃən/ Show Spelled [ap-ri-hen-shuhn] Show IPA
noun
1. anticipation of adversity or misfortune; suspicion or fear of future trouble or evil.
2. the faculty or act of apprehending, especially intuitive understanding; perception on a direct and immediate level.
3. acceptance of or receptivity to information without passing judgment on its validity, often without complete comprehension.
4. a view, opinion, or idea on any subject.
5. the act of arresting; seizure.

I would like to say that within a passage of writing that I intend utilising the second definition or 2. the faculty or act of apprehending as an explanation to what stance I am taking in the following paragraphs.

Is there an official lexicographic term to say "2." ?

I obviously don't know it :eek:

I looked at the front of my Macquarie and Oxford dictionaries and while they devote pages which explain the layout of how their dictionary is presented they do seem to identify if the number such as 2. has a specialist lexicographic name.

Your assistance would be very much appreciated :)

Kind Regards
Lionel

[DeeJay]

Lionel,
It is with no apprehension that I recommend you use the primary meaning of a word when addressing the masses...:p

[JDNSW]

Usually referred to as the "Entry" number. As a general rule, the most frequent meaning is given first, but the difference in frequency for different meanings may be insignificant.

John

[zulu Delta 534]

Why not say" intuitive understanding" instead and in doing so eliminate the chance of any misinterpretation?
Regards
Glen

[mrapocalypse]

May I also recommend contextual analysis.

[gusthedog]

And I thought I was a nerd..... :wasntme:

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

I thought I had figured out a written format for the chapter I am writing for my uni degree. The chapter involves my providing a written description for each of the semantic-based prototypes that I designed. The format consists of about a page of writing that provided different explanations for each prototype. I have been using the same format and just substituting in different specific data for each prototype.

I re-read one of my latest explanations after repeating the format about 6 times. I realised that somewhere amongst the copying and pasting inconsistencies and inaccuracies have crept into the fold.

To counter this I have written a single page "cheat sheet" after making the corrections. I suppose catching the error only after 6 times is a lot better than finding the error after using the old format 32 times :eek:.

Still a pain in the arse though. Why am I posting this here? Because the gold fish located in their tank to the right of my computer screen just said "O", the two dogs are under the house because that is what they do in the Queensland pre-summer and summer weather. Oh is this the pangs of isolation of working at home by oneself and doing a mind numbing repetitive task? :angel:

Or is it that I am communicating with the real world just to make sure one still exists. I feel a Land Rover fix and getting back in touch with reality coming on during the rapidly approaching weekend!

Oh well I better get back to making those corrections and keep on doing some more writing.

Kind Regards
Lionel