From lojban-out@lojban.org Sat Mar 25 09:25:15 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 40364 invoked from network); 25 Mar 2006 17:25:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 25 Mar 2006 17:25:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 25 Mar 2006 17:25:14 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNCUz-0006ra-Uk for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:24:26 -0800 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNCTY-0006qq-3O; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:22:57 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:22:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNCT6-0006qd-9D for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:22:28 -0800 Received: from web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.121]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1FNCT4-0006qW-3g for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:22:28 -0800 Received: (qmail 86187 invoked by uid 60001); 25 Mar 2006 17:22:24 -0000 Message-ID: <20060325172224.86185.qmail@web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.230.183.14] by web81305.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:22:24 PST Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2006 09:22:24 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <925d17560603250717i4e82a17chf0a0d9189ba718a0@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: 11244 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=bGeUTYcvNFVTkb0LGCVOXY2qVvgxw6VDm190ufOgysyiFO2EiQ X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 25654 --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > 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 suspect that this points to at least two concepts of "love." The one given seem appropriate for at least a large part of "Love they neighbor," for example, which usually explicitly divorced from feelings (or is connected only by saying that feelings don't matter here). there is also the moon-calf kind of love, "romatic love," say, that is all about feeling and has few of the practical upshots listed in the NSM paraphrase. It is probably also this latter that has the physiological correlates (palpitations, sweats and the like) that I noted as missing. > > 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. I (and a goodly number of at least old-style anthropological linguists -- this is Hoijer's spin on S-W) incline to the notion that the concept potential is continuous but that each language whacks it up into pretty discrete blocks (maybe fuzzy, but still distinct). So, it would not seem odd that every language has primes in the full sense. the amazing claim of NSM is that the primes are the same for all languages -- or, in the weaker version, that there is a core of primes that are the same even if each language adds some peculiar to itself. If even the latter is true, it says something very interesting about the genetic component (probably) in human language. > > > 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. Well, from the philosophic point of view, the success of the NSM program need not say anything about the nature of language. It may just be that they have found a scheme (perhaps one among many possible and equally successful) which can in fact be used in this way. That need not mean that this schem is "really there," in all languages independent of some observer imposing it on the languages. To be sure, NSM does the right things to establish its really-there-ness, but it always eventually comes down to the investigator's interpretation of the phenomena: that his expression is the realization in this language of this prime from the list, for example. All of this in spite of what was siad just above. > 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 can't find a connected discussion of this, so I don't know what the examples are. I only know that the use of OPPOSITE has been suggested several times over the last 30-odd years and always rejected. 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.) Well, as for productive, notice that it is virtually never used in English -- nor any other natural language I know. I turns up in Espperanto as an active feature, in Lojban sporadically, in aUI as a central productive feature. And, I assume in many other constructed languages exactly because it is so economical (halving one large section of the basic vocabulary). But -- I suppose its detractors would say -- good and bad, etc. are experienced differently, not as opposites but first in different ways (indeed, it is hard to say what "experiencing as opposites" would mean). As for defining "opposite," I can't come up with one either, but I expect it will involve sentential negation (only aUI that I know of doesn't sentential negation as a primitive but rather derives it from OPPOSITE) and possible some notion of approximation. I really wish there was an NSM dictionary to check up on various concepts -- and a hot line to ask about others. 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.