From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBDVjdXtBBoEe9pbtQ@googlegroups.com Mon Apr 25 03:03:16 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QEIdL-0005Ti-Qn; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:03:16 -0700 Received: by vws2 with SMTP id 2sf889604vws.16 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:03:05 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender :date:message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Jn/sfiE2C2gmBPFy/ej7V0hwXTh3CzBpbLYSBUJII1I=; b=bMGIXmbwYwJwPXrsYVnnEugquuik5xK/is+/ArKjdvNc3gLA3kR/vDyIQfl2q8AfLs cbQ69NTo1TXqT84oOhqMdix6mPk9Vj8A2bY+xPkmS5bso3jQrOnj9ceT5P0V6aDJa4xc SfA7nXUi+WTglENEOwiDKyHV+O+LzB5SGObAE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:date:message-id :subject:from:to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=qS3lvVb7I0fdLpsNkToafccy4ix2SWR0VEi51KLi21JvoaZTJ6lKcdbDMcjFqpars1 gbRC3YeOVkRhvUTABpd99LuFrexaCODAYeQzsKwCzkik94xWBN2+cQB+BZ6HkPKbudae Gl+vn4z+vuBcYNeUF7DNP+hpKzJF/Wiopq0i0= Received: by 10.220.196.102 with SMTP id ef38mr307028vcb.28.1303725781413; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:03:01 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.173.66 with SMTP id o2ls1074980vcz.5.gmail; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.122.23 with SMTP id j23mr1661298vcr.9.1303725780535; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.122.23 with SMTP id j23mr1661297vcr.9.1303725780518; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:03:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f42.google.com (mail-qw0-f42.google.com [209.85.216.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s9si330110vcc.12.2011.04.25.03.02.59 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:02:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.42; Received: by qwi4 with SMTP id 4so1517585qwi.15 for ; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:02:59 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.68.138 with SMTP id v10mr2634009qci.204.1303725778575; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.182.209 with HTTP; Mon, 25 Apr 2011 03:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2011 11:02:58 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Semantic Primitives (continued) From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.42 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 23 April 2011 14:16, MorphemeAddict wrote: > Circularity is avoidable. That's the whole point of Anna Wierzbicka's > Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which assumes a small number (~62) of 'wor= ds' > that can't be defined in terms of simpler words. 2011/4/24 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:22 AM, MorphemeAddict wrot= e: >> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Jones wrot= e: >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage >>> >>> I also don't think they're very well chosen, as a lot of them are easy = to >>> define without circularity. >> >> Really? Which ones? How would you define them? > > The ones I always found a bit surprizing were the pairs GOOD - BAD, > BIG - SMALL, A LONG TIME - A SHORT TIME, NEAR - FAR, when one in each > pair could easily be defined in terms of the other: OPPOSITE-OF GOOD, > OPPOSITE-OF BIG, OPPOSITE-OF A-LONG-TIME, OPPOSITE-OF NEAR. > > They don't have OPPOSITE-OF as a primitive, but presumably it must be > definable in terms of primitives (although it's not easy to see how). > And even if you needed to use BAD, SMALL, A SHORT TIME and FAR to > define OPPOSIT-OF, it would still be more economical to have > OPPOSITE-OF as the primitive instead of the other four. > > Also, couldn't A-SHORT-TIME and A-LONG-TIME not be just SMALL > FOR-SOME-TIME and BIG FOR-SOME-TIME? Likewise, DIE could be OPPOSITE-OF-LIVE HAPPEN or NOT-LIVE HAPPEN. Depending on the culture, it might be even that DEAD be the basis for BORN or NOT-DEAD HAPPEN. Why is TRUE not among "logical concepts", especially in relation to NOT? Why should MOMENT be distinct from WHEN/TIME or VERY-SHORT TIME? Boguswafski might have implied OPPOSITE-OF when he didn't couple MORE with LESS on the same row. Similarly, he put in LIKE/WAY alone without its probable counterpart, DIFFERENT. And there are KIND, SAME, and OTHER in other categories; I wonder why all these couldn't belong to the same category. Shouldn't there be EXPRESS or REPRESENT, regarding which SAY could be resolved into WORD EXPRESS? Could SYMBOL not be more primitive than WORD? Why should WORD be plural as Boguswafski puts it? Could WORDS not be SOME/MANY WORD? Could PEOPLE not be defined as SOME/MANY PERSON? Could PERSON not be a derivative of THING with MENTAL? Are connectives not primitive? I-{e}-YOU for WE (in the sense of {mi'o}), ONE-{joi}-ONE for TWO, NOT FAR-{a}-NEAR for HERE, NOT BEFORE-{a}-AFTER for NOW, THING-SAME PLACE-{e}-TIME-NOT-SAME HAPPEN for MOVE, and so on. Very productive. Why not on the list? On 24 April 2011 18:14, Jonathan Jones wrote: >>> I also don't think they're very well chosen, as a lot of them are easy = to >>> define without circularity. >> >> Really? Which ones? How would you define them? > > > Well, I and YOU, for a start. Lojban defines those as "the speaker" and "= the > listener", respectively. To use the terms on the list: speaker =3D SAY-DO THING listener =3D HEAR-DO THING These might then belong to the "Relational Substantives", for there can't be a speech listener without a speech speaker. Lojban has also "others", which may include what Boguswafski calls SOMETHING/THING. mu'o --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.