From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Mar 23 06:07:29 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:07:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMQSw-0004Cf-0C for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:07:06 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.205]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMQSs-0004CL-LN for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:07:05 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i28so493140wra for ; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:07:01 -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=Urr1nN3DUYoDym3DoXTAE5/OFouO6IKPm4ihTKGjZaZsfg+QpvDnrXnHidEb4mw/Odp3RUYNaQve/bdr1f3vTxVNLwTLKQjP4+bLvtd2v56syWzICfryS+F+RUUQRBy0NOnFEet6fgxHliEZ15vsbJZNzxYFt471LX3DFD7lEJ0= Received: by 10.54.117.11 with SMTP id p11mr1461574wrc; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:07:01 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.126.9 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Mar 2006 06:07:01 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560603230607o56c91fa3h2a4e93ddaa27f106@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 11:07:01 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes In-Reply-To: <20060322214930.89898.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: <925d17560603221113q6342d757v3a171a6cbaece710@mail.gmail.com> <20060322214930.89898.qmail@web81303.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11227 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: > No one claimed they were built up from others in > any sense but that it is possible to define all > concepts starting from just a few (relatively > speaking). The alternative is to say that a > language (it would only take one to make the > point) cannot completely define its vocabulary. Consider these two theses: (A) Most concepts can be very well defined in terms of other concepts. (B) Every concept (except a selected few) can be perfectly defined in terms of other concepts. I don't think anyone would have much to argue against (A), it is pretty much an observable truth. (B) is a much harder nut to swallow. And that's just about concepts. When it comes to words, things get much more muddied. Words generally point to a conceptual area more than to a strictly delimited concept, and the concept they bring up in a given use varies depending on other words used in their context. So defining a word is much more tricky than defining a concept. > The most one could get would be overlapping > partial definition sets, with the bottom level of > one set being at a higher level in some other(s). > As a practical matter, given a finite span of > concern, this is sufficient pehaps, if we don't > get caught in a circle. For a theory, however, > it is a disaster, since it means that a language > can only be completely defined in another > langauage and so on to an infinite regress. And the thesis that a language can be "completely defined" must be taken as self-evident? > As > usual, it seems best to stop at the first step if > possible. NSM holds that it is possible for each > language and furthermore that the initial step in > every language is the same (directly > intertranslatable). Yes, it's an attractive thesis, but not a very convincing one from the evidence at hand. And I don't see the "logical argument" for it yet. > > The definitions I've read for other concepts > > don't look much like > > fixed expressions. > > I don't follow this, I think. Do you mean that > in other languages, the words that correspond to > the concepts are not fixed expressions? No, I haven't seen the proposed sets for any language other than English. I'd be interested to see the corresponding set proposed for Spanish for example, but I wasn't able to find it. > If you > can make that case for any language you have shot > down the NSM project in its present form, since > that fixed form is a requirement to be a prime. > If you mean that NSM definition (strictly > "reductive paraphrases") don't seem to be in > fixed form, I'd like to see a case. Well, I've only seen two or three NSM definitions given as examples. Is there a comprehensive list of definitions somewhere? For example: NSM definition of loves [2] Person-X loves Person-Y = X often thinks about Y X thinks good things about Y X wants to do good things for Y X wants good things to happen to Y when X thinks about Y, X often wants to be with Y when X thinks about Y, X often feels something good (From this I now gather that the prime THINK is {pensi} and not {jinvi}. I also notice a few non-primes there, but I guess they have already been pre-defined.) Now, given that, what would be the problem of defining: X is bad = X is the opposite of good How is that less of a fixed expression than the expressions used for "loves"? 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.