Message-Id: <199407150132.AA11504@nfs1.digex.net> Reply-To: Nick NICHOLAS Date: Thu Jul 14 21:32:44 1994 Sender: Lojban list From: Nick NICHOLAS Subject: Re: cukta X-To: ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK X-Cc: Lojban Mailing List To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: <199407150007.2801@krang.vis.mu.OZ.AU> from "ucleaar" at Jul 14, 94 11:05:12 pm Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Thu Jul 14 21:32:44 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Hu'tegh! nuq ja' ucleaar jay'? =A couple of years ago I wrote on Lojban list that it would be in keeping =with the explicitness of the description of Lojban syntax and that =part of semantics treatable in formal, logical ways, if the meanings =of gismu (and lujvo etc) were given explicit prototype definitions. =That is, to me the spirit of the Lojban enterprise is its explicitness, =not its use of logic, or what have you. I suppose I didn't know about prototype semantics back then; now that I do --- you, And, are a *legend*! (Well, you'd have to be. Aren't you the only professional linguist on this list? ;) ). You're absolutely right. In fact, combining Natural Semantic Metalanguage (to give your definitions a grounding in primitives) with Prototype semantics *and* predicate logic... wow. The world is our oyster. I *strongly* recommend people (including you, Lojbab ;)) have a look at Anna Wierzbicka's Dictionary of Speech Act Verbs. I think it shows what And's envisaged deluxe dictionary should look like. And I strongly think it would be linguistically very worthwhile work. Nick.