Talk:definition by pointing

This entry has survived Wiktionary's verification process.

Please do not re-nominate for verification without comprehensive reasons for doing so.

---

definition by pointing

Doesn't seem like a set phrase: In most use "pointing" coordinates with other nouns, -ing forms or is part of a phrasal verb). Other uses are mentions or term is used to define (deprecated template usage) ostensive definition, as if it does not need defining itself (being self-evident). DCDuring TALK 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I have added one more quotation to "definition by pointing", but I cannot find any other one.

Most phrases found by google books:"definition by pointing" find the phrase "definition by pointing" used not as a term for a class of things: the "by pointing" part modifies not the definition but the action or operation done to the definition, as some examples show:

• "Railway promoters did their best to avoid the full force of this definition by pointing out potential benefits ..."
• "Wender (1975) has elaborated this definition by pointing to two major areas of dysfunction found in MBD children: ..."
• "It is possible to criticize this definition by pointing out that it would include a trained parrot in the ranks of man, ..."

I am afraid this entry has to be deleted.

OTOH, definition by example should be restored, as the contradistinction between "ostensive definition" and "definition by example" should be made clear and cannot be securely infered from merely looking at the term "definition by example". At least, "definition by example" should have a fair RFD or RFV trial. --Dan Polansky 10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have found a good search term:

Google books: "definition by pointing" -"definition by pointing out" -"definition by pointing to"

I have added some quotations found by that search to the "definition by pointing" entry, and to its citations namespace.

Admittedly, many of the authors in the search who by "definition by pointing" mean certain kind of definition seem to take it for granted that the term is sum-of-parts, understandable without further explanation. This is witnessed by repeated quotations of the sort of "ostensive definition = definition by pointing", without it being further explained what "definition by pointing" is supposed to be.

I have created "definition by pointing" from Wikipedia as synonymous to "ostensive definition", and defined "ostensive definition" based on Wikipedia as "A process of binding the meaning to the defined term by pointing out examples and counterexamples." However, this definition is ambiguous and imperfect, waiting for improvement. When I draw a sketchy picture of a hammer and utter "hammer" without pointing my finger to the picture, is it a definition by pointing? When I utter "whistle" followed by my whistling, is it a definition by pointing? My tentative answers to the questions are yes and yes, and this, it seems to me, makes "definition by pointing" not a sum of parts but rather a term whose scope should be clarified by a definition. I admit that "A process of binding the meaning to the defined term by pointing out examples and counterexamples" does a poor job at that clarification. --Dan Polansky 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your questions: hammer: yes; whistle: yes. "Pointing" includes the sense of "drawing attention to" by unspecified means, exactly the sense required for this term. Ergo, SoP, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Now consider the following quotation given in the entry: 'Closely related to definition by pointing is definition by examples. Using this method to define "suspension bridge," one might mention the Brooklyn Bridge, ...'. When I define "suspension bridge" as that class of bridges which is exemplified by the Brooklyn Bridge, I am also pointing to the Brooklyn Bridge in the sense of "directing the attention to". But such a definition is a "definition by example", not a "definition by pointing"; it rests on the assumption that the receiver of the definition already knows what "Brooklyn Bridge" is like or is able to find out later on. But when I say that "apple" is "the thing on the desk" assuming there is only one physical object on the desk, then that is, I suppose, a definition by pointing. If it turns out that I am wrong and that "definition by pointing" includes "A suspension bridge is a kind of bridge exemplified by the Brooklyn Bridge", then this is a finding that I need to have documented somewhere; it tells me something nontrivial about the scope of the term "definition by pointing". --Dan Polansky 09:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

RFV passed. DCDuring — or anyone else — if you're still not convinced that it's an idiom, please list it at RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)