From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Mar 25 07:20:02 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 28676 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2006 15:19:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2006 15:19:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2006 15:19:25 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNAXx-00050E-3s for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:19:21 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNAWs-0004yo-8n; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:18:15 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:18:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNAWL-0004xf-RO for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:17:41 -0800 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.238]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNAWB-0004xV-PT for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:17:41 -0800 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id i20so1049365wra for ; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:17:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.101.6 with SMTP id y6mr1480015wrb; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:17:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.54.126.13 with HTTP; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:17:29 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560603250717i4e82a17chf0a0d9189ba718a0@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 12:17:29 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20060324172530.57929.qmail@web81308.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: <925d17560603240658r486d221fn28ee49e3c7548340@mail.gmail.com> <20060324172530.57929.qmail@web81308.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 11243 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: semantic primes X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=89gK1k-1qSMAzgAcxOGu0gd-_dBSEZE3LIS439etAIUVaCi-qQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25653 On 3/24/06, John E Clifford wrote: > I think the proposal about "x loves y" > works pretty well. If there is something > missing, it can be added in once it is > formulated. It is interesting, for example, that it does not use the prime FEEL at all, which seems at least unexpected, because "X loves Y" doesn't seem all that different from "X feels love for Y". > I wonder if you know much about systematic > semantic theory then. It is based in almost > every case on Logic and the metatheory that goves > with it, one feature of which is exactly the > completeness of the metatheory (even when the > object theory is not). Well, I don't know much about it, no. I can see two basic approaches to "concepts": (1) Concepts are atomic. They are either undefinable conceptual atoms, or conceptual molecules reducible to their component conceptual atoms. There might be a finite or an indefinite number of atoms. (2) Conceptual space is a continuum, with no fixed strictly delimited concepts. In the case of (1), which basically seems to be the NSM approach, words may correspond to one or several atomic or molecular concepts. In the case of (2), words can't correspond to a concept, since there is no such thing, but only to a conceptual region. One could say that words rigidly delimit a region, or several regions, or one could say that words simply point to a region without giving boundaries to it, so that only context can determine how good a pointer a given word is for the conceptual extent intended. > > Is semantic theory is impossible without > > complete > > definitions? Why can't there be a semantic > > theory > > based on approximate, good enough for a > > purpose, > > definitions? > > As a practical matter, because such a theory is > devilishly hard to work with, if possible at all. I have no problem at all with NSM as a useful practical tool. It is the claims about universality and so forth that make it sound quirky. As I said, "the > opposite of good" is not an adjective, as "bad" > is in English. I think this can be worked around > in various ways, but -- as noted -- there are > claimed to be other reasons for not taking > OPPOSITE as a prime. Ok, but a claim that there are other reasons is not as convincing as the reasons themselves might eventually be. I am not saying that OPPOSITE has to be a prime, all I'm saying is that it is odd that they wouldn't have it as a prime, given that it's so productive. (And also given that I can't imagine what it's paraphrase in terms of the given primes might be.) 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.