Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (psuvm.psu.edu [128.118.56.2]) by locke.ccil.org (8.6.9/8.6.10) with SMTP id NAA19505 for ; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 13:14:15 -0400 Message-Id: <199508101714.NAA19505@locke.ccil.org> Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 8402; Thu, 10 Aug 95 12:57:52 EDT Received: from PSUVM.PSU.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@PSUVM) by PSUVM.PSU.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 1841; Thu, 10 Aug 1995 12:23:35 -0400 Date: Thu, 10 Aug 1995 11:26:31 -0500 Reply-To: "Steven M. Belknap" Sender: Lojban list From: "Steven M. Belknap" Subject: negation To: John Cowan Status: OR X-From-Space-Date: Thu Aug 10 13:14:23 1995 X-From-Space-Address: <@PSUVM.PSU.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET> > For example small is not the same as not-big. In my playing with > languages right now I put 'j' as being the opposite and 'n' being negation. > so: > > small = jbig > not big = nbig > not small = njbig > > Is it worth so much that opposite words should be on their own and > develop freely? I have great difficulties understanding that... > > Could you explain! reminds me a bit of the language in 1984 by Orwell - and the like. I am trying to see if my preference for having pairs of opposite words is more than just prejudice. There are some words in English that don't have easily accessible opposites (sweet, for example) But is this just an implicit recognition of physiology or randomness? I think inversion for some predicates is more complex than just "opposite" or "negation" Consider red - green red - white red - black red - (any other non-red color) Each pair could be considered as opposites by some reasonable criteria. In fuzzy terms, some predicates vary from zero to one, others from zero to infinity, others from negative one to positive one, others from negative infinity to positive infinity. -Steven Steven M. Belknap, M.D. Assistant Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Medicine University of Illinois College of Medicine at Peoria email: sbelknap@uic.edu Voice: 309/671-3403 Fax: 309/671-8413