semantic primes can define anything

[MorphemeAddict@wmconnect.com]

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