Thomas Neidhart‘s comments made me realize I had been too brief on the issue of subject identifiers. I want to correct that by telling “The Story of Blow.”
If you are reading this post you are likely online so please open up another browser window to: Merriam-Webster and type in the search box the word “blow.”
Working from my post What Makes Subject Identifiers Different?, let’s go down my four points for “blow.”
1) Quite clearly “blow” identifies a lot of different subjects. So it is a “subject identifier” in the non-topic map sense.
2) And just as clearly, “blow” can be, has the capacity to, lead us to additional information. That is it can be resolved.
Doesn’t mean it will be resolved, only that resolution is possible.
3) The additional information point is illustrated by the Merriam-Webster entry. As a transitive verb, it lists some 14 separate meanings. All of which involve additional information to know which one is meant.
Btu the dictionary is just a common example.
Another is the information that speakers of English carry around about the meanings of “blow.”
Which means our resolutions of “blow” can differ from that of others. (The “vocabulary problem.”)
4) The additional information in a dictionary is explicit. That is you and I can both examine the same information.
That is in contrast to each of us hearing the term “blow” in conversation or over the radio/TV and deciding privately what was meant. We go through the first three steps but not to the fourth.
I could say: “That was good blow.” and leave you wondering what possible meaning I have assigned to the term “blow.” I’m surprised the dictionary omits this one, in another lifetime I would have understood it to be a reference to cocaine. So if I wanted that usage to be understood by others, I had better mark it with a Subject Identifier so as to make that meaning explicit.
I can think of several other missing definitions for “blow.” Can you?
PS: I was amused at the example given for the sense of “blow” as to spend extravagantly, “I will blow you to a steak.” Since Google reports no “hits” on that string I suspect it was inserted to catch anyone copying their definitions.