I don’t think so - not if we’re only looking for a very closely synonymous overlap with one sense/definition of each word in the pair - such things exist, and often the dictionary definition for one of them will just be a reference to the other, for example, ‘bucket’ has lots of detailed, descriptive definitions, but the first definition of ‘pail’ is usually just ‘bucket’.
But again, none of this really matters. If we can’t have concept that is a word with no synonyms, because of the vagaries and variances in language, then we can’t have a concept of synonyms, for precisely the same reasons. The real world is fuzzy, but we can still describe or discuss it in idealised terms.
They aren’t though, are they?
You may as well say “Chicken isn’t ‘mononymic’; you could also use pig, cow, sheep etc. They’re all conceptually the same thing – something that you might see at a farm.”
Maybe I’m being whooshed, but I think it’s pretty clear that there are words that uniquely refer to a concept.
No doubt. The size of the set, though, is going to vary by the broadness of the concepts considered.
Using “hatch” to refer to a residential interior door like Pasta’s would maybe be a funny colloquial thing to say, but it seems less of a stretch than using “pig” to refer to a chicken.
That is, surface which occupies and closes off a portal seems a more functional and useful concept to be talking about than something that you might see at a farm. YMMV.
I don’t think the OP’s concept has a word, or indeed needs one : we came up with the concept of synonyms and the like to define those (relatively) few, specific words that are interchangeable* because they are the exception.
The grand majority of words, which would fit within the OP’s definition, do not need a special moniker because it’s the ground state of words.
I suppose you could call them “mononyms” if you really wanted to. I’d just go with “words”, as opposed to “words with synonyms”.
even though most lexicographers will tell you no synonym means the exact same thing as the word it could replace.
Well, the word “nonsynonymous” appears to be a non-synonymous word meaning “substitutions that result in amino acid replacements.” We could propose broadening the meaning of nonsynomymous to include, “words that have no synonyms.” But then, ironically, the word nonsynomymous would no longer be non-synonymous.
No doubt - we had it in this thread, but I think that’s a red herring, because it’s also the case that no word means exactly the same as itself, across any span of time, population, etc.
Anyway, why does it matter how rare or common something is? Rare things have category names, common things have category names, generally just because they are categories to be described.
And this is a distinct category: that which has no readily available alternative. It doesn’t even matter that items in the category might not stay there when a new word is coined to describe them, or that they might be mistakenly placed there because one or more of their synonyms is not well known.
Maybe I’m just being a stubborn ass. Can you give me some examples of other things that are so common, there is no name for them?
It’s not that they have no name, but that non-exceptional or non-remarkable elements of a group most often don’t have a name other than the generic name of the group.
Take numbers, for instance. You’ve got prime numbers, but numbers that are not primes don’t get a definition or ensemble title, except perhaps “non-prime”. Nor is there a word for all the numbers that are not sphenic numbers, or perfect numbers, or abundant numbers etc…
There’s also no word for horses that are not white (sorry, grey) from head to toe. True, there are any number of horse coat variations out there, and each of them has its own name. But there is no name for “all horses that do not bear coat X”.
Fair enough, but I don’t think those are nearly such everyday concepts (except to mathematicians) as the concept of synonymy, so don’t seem readily comparable.
Yes, but these are non-overlapping sets, each of which has its own name. ‘Words’ is a set that includes synonyms.
I’m sorry to keep banging on about this - and I’m certain it’s just me that’s the problem here. It’s not that I don’t comprehend any of the explanations people have offered in this thread, it’s simply that they don’t ring true to me - a problem which I am fully prepared to accept the blame.
Your point seems to be; If we define everything broadly enough, everything has a synonym. That may be true, but is beside the point.
Many things are defined quite specifically, and we cannot define them more broadly without changing their obvious and usual meaning.
Why should we do that? Why not accept that some (many) words are defined uniquely?
Note also that a “grey area” does not make two concepts synonyms. Indeed, there is a grey area between the concepts of “black” and “white”. Clearly black and white are not synonyms however.
Don’t ask me, maths are really not my strong suit.
But one could also consider the square/rectangle concept. There is a specific word for quadrilaterals with all right angles (rectangles), and another for quadrilaterals with all right angles and equal length sides (square). But there’s no word I know of for the vast gamut of strictly non-square quadrilaterals.
Well, how often does one need to refer to mononyms ? Even amongst lexicographers, I wouldn’t think the concept holds much interest or attention. If it were, they’d have coined a word for it And that’s really the best answer I could give you, I think: there’s no word, because nobody’s made one up yet. And the only reason for that is, they haven’t needed such a word often enough to warrant its coinage.
IOW, it’s up to us
I’m just saying, not all definable subsets of a whole have their own name. Nor do all existing subsets have a corresponding and named anti-set.
You are correct that “words” includes synonyms, however, and as such isn’t a proper anti-set of “synonym”.
Don’t beat yourself. I for one find the discussion interesting, and your arguments valid.
And that’s really the best answer I could give you, I think: there’s no word, because nobody’s made one up yet. And the only reason for that is, they haven’t needed such a word often enough to warrant its coinage.