From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Mar 24 04:18:38 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 46974 invoked from network); 24 Mar 2006 12:18:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m27.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Mar 2006 12:18:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Mar 2006 12:18:37 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMlFP-0001ku-3f for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:18:31 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMlBK-0001bJ-Rs; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:14:24 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:14:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMlAr-0001Zu-DI for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:13:49 -0800 Received: from imo-m25.mx.aol.com ([64.12.137.6]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FMlAo-0001Zf-Sk for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 04:13:48 -0800 Received: from MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com by imo-m25.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v38_r7.3.) id d.354.88d7f3 (3866) for ; Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:13:43 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <354.88d7f3.31553c77@wmconnect.com> Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 07:13:43 EST MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_354.88d7f3.31553c77_boundary" X-Mailer: 6.0 for Windows XP sub 52 X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) X-archive-position: 11233 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -1.4 (-) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com From: lojban-out@lojban.org Reply-To: MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com Subject: [lojban] semantic primes can define anything X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=0oxg1QrosQquiy9DF70M870ZBHXd3Ke1Dys-rZjoBxBEJaQo9w X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25643 --part1_354.88d7f3.31553c77_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 3/24/2006 4:22:05 AM Central Standard Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes: > 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. > > And yet this is precisely Wierzbicka's claim: That any and all nonprime words can be defined completely in terms of the semantic primes that she and her group are finding and testing. A second claim (for which they are seeking counterexamples) is that all natural languages have the primes. stevo --part1_354.88d7f3.31553c77_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable In a message dated 3/24/2006 4:22= :05 AM Central Standard Time, ecartis@digitalkingdom.org writes:


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.


And yet this is precisely Wierzbicka's claim:  That any = and all nonprime words can be defined completely in terms of the semantic p= rimes that she and her group are finding and testing.  
A second claim (for which they are seeking counterexamples) is that all= natural languages have the primes.

stevo --part1_354.88d7f3.31553c77_boundary--