From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Mar 22 08:09:29 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 72167 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2006 16:09:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2006 16:09:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2006 16:09:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5sb-0006C0-Ho for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:08:13 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5ry-0006AX-HA; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:07:35 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:07:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5rT-0006AO-Bb for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:07:03 -0800 Received: from web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.126]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FM5rQ-00069f-St for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:07:03 -0800 Received: (qmail 70853 invoked by uid 60001); 22 Mar 2006 16:06:59 -0000 Message-ID: <20060322160659.70851.qmail@web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81310.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:06:59 PST Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 08:06:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560603220645l1c74d231p53a96c129518247b@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11214 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=UXFmrSsd57hrBg2s8TKrnNI9H2lsdBEtLuEDsnJ1PTntzwWmuw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25624 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 3/22/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > For example > > > "SOMETHING" > > > does not have to be an object, it can also > be > > > an action, as in > > > "I do something", but presumably it cannot > be a > > > person, so > > > there is no direct equivalent in Lojban {lo > > > dacti} covers too little > > > and {da} covers too much. > > > > But it is definitely an existential > quantifier, > > not a noun phrase -- and not quantitative > ({su'o} > > -- a distinction hard to make in Lojban or > > English). > > Not sure what you mean. Wierzbicka lists > SOMETHING/THING as > a substantive, together with I, YOU, SOMEONE, > PEOPLE and BODY, > and SOME as a separate quantifier, together > with ONE, TWO, ALL > and MANY/MUCH. So at least in their system it > seems to be a noun > phrase. > Ooops! I am on the wrong page. Yes, this is THING in some sense or other, so indefinite as to include events, actions and the like. How vague is {dacti} (I seem to recall some dispute about that or a similar word a long time ago but don't remeber the upshot). > > Well, there is the logical argument for there > > being a single distinctive list of primes. > > A not very convincing one, for my taste. I'm never sure what will convince you of anything. this eems pretty knock-down-drag-out: if there are no primes then all definitions are ultimately circular. To be sure, we can avoid this in practical terms for a very long time, maybe forever, but the threat is always there in primeless systems. > > > I think that ultimately a universal > > set of primes is called for, whether the NSM > set > > or another (and it is unclear that the NSM > set is > > adequate, despite the best efforts of its > supporters). > > At first glance it seems rather inadequate. It > is not very clear > why they have so many pairs of opposites > instead of just having > OPPOSITE as a prime. (I'm not even sure how > they define OPPOSITE > in terms of their primes.) > I asked about that. The simple fact is that many languages (English, for example) don't have an OPPOSITE that functions in the appropriate way (like Esperanto mal- or aUI y-). Defining OPPOSITE may be a problem but it is relatively insignificant compared to the problems with color words, natural kinds and artifacts, most of which are dealt with so far by unreliable verbal pointing (green is the color of grass -- without using the words "color" or "grass" -- which only works for people that have grass (and can distinguish it in the definition, "things grow out of the ground," from trees and mushrooms)). The curious thing is that these problems have been mentioned since 1972 for the project and amazingly little has been done to solve them, suggesting to the impatient observer that they cannot be solved within the present framework. And no obvious extension has turned up either. Most other prime systems take a few colors and some principles of mixing as basic (and a few kinds and artifacts too) and go on from there. The problem for colors is that no system is going to be universal, since some languages have only DARK and LIGHT (and maybe RED). The pointing seems to be on the right track for kinds and artifacts, since, by and large, we get these notions by osrtention, not defintion, and then the thing is what it is regardless of whther the "definition" is correct: water would still be water even if its formula turned out to be say HO. 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.