Date: Fri, 19 Dec 1997 12:53:10 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <199712191753.MAA18272@locke.ccil.org> Reply-To: Robin Turner Sender: Lojban list From: Robin Turner Subject: wants and needs X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: John Cowan Status: OR X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 3289 X-From-Space-Date: Fri Dec 19 12:53:12 1997 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU co doi Something I posted to another list (tesol-l) which I thought you might find interesting. I hope mi cu nitcu la feraris. le nu se djica ninmu is grammatical! (it is not, I hasten to add, a statement of my own feelings about cars and/or women) If not, can someone please correct it, and I'll post the erratum to tesol-l. co'o mi'e robin ============================================================================ ======== > > At 12:40 18/12/97 +0900, you wrote: > >Robin wrote; > > > >>A need is > >>something which is a pre-condition of a want > > > >This is rather neat, but doesn't really reflect the words' usage. For > >example: I want a Ferrari. I'm unlikely to encounter anyone aside from > >the manufacturers who might acknowledge that I need a Ferrari. Certainly > >not my bank manager. I even agree myself that I don't need a Ferrari, > >but it would be nice. My 'want' seems to exist independently of 'need'. > >What you write is all very well, but in practice there is considerable > >indistinction between the two terms. > > > >Regards > > > >Ken > > Good point about usage - this is one of the dilemmas of semantics, I think. > From one point of view the meaning of a word is what it logically implies, > from the other, it is the way the word is used (early and late > Wittgenstein, to oversimplify somewhat). What I think the word "need" > logically implies is: > > 1) there is something that the speaker wants > 2) the "need" is a necessary (but not always sufficient) condition for 1). > > In other words, if you don't fulfill the need, you can't have the want. > This can be applied even to "primary needs" (e.g. food), the want in > question here being "to stay alive". Someone about to commit suicide would > not worry that there was no food in the fridge, for example. > On the other hand, if we look at the way "need" is used in practice, it > often seems to mean "a strong want" or "a justified want". Where it > retains the instrumental sense, the "want" involved is often extremely > vague and/or of dubious relation to the need. > As linguists (and language teachers, of course) I think we need to be > aware of both aspects of meaning. Sometimes one aspect takes priority, as > in teaching idiomatic usage, or in analysing politics. > > Incidentally, in Lojban (the constructed language I mentioned in a previous > posting) the definition of "need" is as follows: > > >nitcu [ tcu ] need > > > >x1 needs/requires/is dependent on/[wants] necessity x2 for > purpose/action/stage of >process x3 > > Here the place-structure of "nitcu" requires a purpose (or want) for which > you need the thing in question, so you could say, for example, > > mi cu nitcu la feraris. le nu se djica ninmu > I [function] need [article]Ferrari[article][event] ["passive"]desire women > I need a Ferrari in order to be desired by women. > > I could also say simply "mi cu nitcu la porc.", but this would > automatically invite the response "cu nitcu ko'a ma" (need it (for) what?). > > Best wishes, > Robin > > P.S. Real gluttons for punishment on the need/want subject may care to look > at my essay "How to get an 'ought' from an 'is'". >