From MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Fri May 09 08:09:32 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 9 May 2003 15:09:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 97179 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 15:09:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 May 2003 15:09:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d06.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.38) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 15:09:31 -0000 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-d06.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.22.) id r.7b.10a8fbe2 (3890) for ; Fri, 9 May 2003 11:08:58 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <7b.10a8fbe2.2bed1e8a@wmconnect.com> Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 11:08:58 EDT Subject: semantic space To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_7b.10a8fbe2.2bed1e8a_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 sub 12 From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=137764184 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbaner X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19681 --part1_7b.10a8fbe2.2bed1e8a_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 2003-05-06 10:58:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time, lojban@yahoogroups.com writes: > > my first thought is: by starting with everything and successively dividing > it > > into smaller spaces. > > And when do you stop dividing? > whenever you want. or whenever the divisions 'feel' too small to be semantically distinct. > > second thought: use concept lists (e.g. roget's thesaurus). > > That does nothing for you, as you have no idea (let alone evidence or > *proof*!) that whatever list you use is complete. > yes, i'm aware of this too, but it's a sort of minimum: anything less and you know something is missing. let's say it's necessary, but not adequate. of course, too, there is a huge amount of redundancy in such a concept list, as there is in language in general. finding new concepts is not easy, as Suzette Haden Elgin describes in her novel "Native Tongue". stevo stevo --part1_7b.10a8fbe2.2bed1e8a_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 2003-05-06 10:58:55 PM East= ern Daylight Time, lojban@yahoogroups.com writes:


> my first thought is:= by starting with everything and successively dividing it
> into smaller spaces.  

And when do you stop dividing?

whenever you want.  or whenever the divisions 'feel' too small to = be semantically distinct.


> second = thought:  use concept lists (e.g. roget's thesaurus).

That does nothing for you, as you have no idea (let alone evidence or
*proof*!) that whatever list you use is complete.

yes, i'm aware of this too, but it's a sort of minim= um: anything less and you know something is missing.  let's say it's n= ecessary, but not adequate.  of course, too, there is a huge amount of= redundancy in such a concept list, as there is in language in general. &nb= sp;finding new concepts is not easy, as Suzette Haden Elgin describes in he= r novel "Native Tongue".

stevo

stevo --part1_7b.10a8fbe2.2bed1e8a_boundary--