On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 2:28 PM, MorphemeAddict
<lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
It's easier to keep I and YOU than forever distinguish between I as speaker and YOU as listener.
Except that I /is/ /always/ the person speaking, and you /is/ /always/ the person listening.
When you are speaking (as in cusku), I always refers to MorphemeAddict, and only refers to MorphemeAddict when you are speaking. When I am speaking, I refers to .aionys., and only refers to .aionys. when I am speaking. When .xorxes. is speaking, I always refers to .xorxes., and only refers to .xorxes. when he is speaking.
Besides, none of "speaker", "listener", "speak", "listener", or "-er" (meaning 'one who does X') is part of NSM.
That's precisely my point. "I ... don't think they're very well chosen...."
And if the other person is currently speaking, then he is not I.
Then why am I, being the "other person ... currently speaking", am referring to myself as "I"?
"I" can't be defined by simpler words. It, along with "YOU", "THIS", "HERE", "NOW" are the basis of deixis, which I don't think you can (or should) eliminate.
Anyway, these words have been discussed in Wierzbicka's books, along with why they are primitive.
stevo
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 4:19 PM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
{mi} isn't the speaker as in "The Speaker of the House". {mi} is the speaker as in "The person currently speaking". I am currently the person "speaking", you are currently the person "listening", therefore I am {mi}, and you are {do}. When I stop being the speaker, due to no longer speaking, someone else will become {mi}.
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 6:57 AM, MorphemeAddict
<lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
"I" is (obviously) not the same as "speaker": 'You are the speaker" doesn't mean "You are I". Also, "I am not the speaker" doesn't mean "I am not I".
Same for "YOU" and "listener".
stevo
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:22 AM, MorphemeAddict
<lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Jones
<eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, here's hers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage
I don't know if these are the same for every language- I assume so, since that's the point, yes?- but most of them are cmavo in Lojban.
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.
2011/4/23 Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 10:16 AM, MorphemeAddict <
lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Circularity is avoidable. That's the whole point of Anna Wierzbicka's
> Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which assumes a small number (~62) of 'words'
> that can't be defined in terms of simpler words.
>>
> Almost all dictionaries are unapologetic about circularity.
It's easy to fix this "problem" for any dictionary as follows:
(1) Take any word that appears in a definition but not as an entry and
classify it as "primitive".
(2) Take any word that appears in its own definition and classify it
as "primitive".
(3) Pick any remaining entry, classify it as "well-defined" and
classify all still unclassified words in its definition as
"primitive".
(4) Repeat step (3) until you run out of entries.
You end up with a pile of words classified as "primitive" and another
pile classified as "well-defined". You can try all possible picking
orders for step (3) if you wish to minimize the set of primitives for
the dictionary, since different picking orders will result in
different sets of primitives.
It would be interesting to see how many primitives result from this
process for a typical dictionary, and how the resulting list of
"primitives" compares with Wierzbicka's.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
This would indeed be an interesting experiment.
stevo
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )
--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.
.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )