From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Mar 22 11:13:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:14:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM8m5-0002dy-Od for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:13:41 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.207]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM8m3-0002dq-Oz for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:13:41 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i34so229329wra for ; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:13:35 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=Nx6PyPlvikv9EvAl7DyWbk8zfyU4eAZ3t7BKH2VJSGWjhlX/Ib623aHKSwqp79KLHmHmbvUGjhMYqYt4gJT+ec5mL0mLCI3pDTT3TxJjbo88wmd5AemTjDH0Hp3BK4c/pLHqL/pQlrTyQVvSsNZL1HPsZHuR7ZqMf/vRyONEL8o= Received: by 10.54.116.1 with SMTP id o1mr837040wrc; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:13:34 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.67.10 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 11:13:34 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560603221113q6342d757v3a171a6cbaece710@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 16:13:34 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes In-Reply-To: <20060322180209.95713.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560603220848w1479c333x344ef414cf0a92e1@mail.gmail.com> <20060322180209.95713.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11224 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 3/22/06, John E Clifford wrote: > I suppose that, > if language never involves its own definitions > (which is possible but rarely occurs in > practice), then the argument doesn't have any > force. But I would think that the ability to > define itself is inherent in language and thus > the argument applies -- even as a practical > matter. I'm afraid I don't see what the argument is. Language works in practice, that's clear. Language can be used to talk about language, you can define one part in terms of other parts, that's also clear. What is not at all clear is that some part of language, some concept, has to be taken as primal, this is not something at all obvious. My impression is that all concepts generally play off of one another, not that they are all built upon some fundamental ones. > > What would be the problem with defining "bad" > > as > > "OPPOSITE of GOOD"? Why would you need to have > > a preffix meaning "opposite"? > > Oh, it doesn't have to be a prefix, just a fixed > expression of some sort. The definitions I've read for other concepts don't look much like fixed expressions. > And the problem of > defining "bad" as the opposite of "good" is that > this definition does not give an adjective in > form; that is, it is not a definition in NSM > terms. Not all languages have adjectives though, so if it's important that GOOD and BAD are adjectives, they can't be universal primes. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.