Re: [lojban] Re: semantic primes can define anything

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 3/24/06, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > While I don't have a complete list of all the
> > readily available NSM English definitions,
> all
> > the one I do have use FEEL in the emotion
> sense,
> > not the sensation one: "Feel something good"
> > refers to an emotion, not Angelina Jolie's
> left
> > tit.
> 
> As I understand it, it does not refer to active
> feeling,
> but to any passive feeling, be it of sensations
> or emotions.
> See
>
http://elies.rediris.es/Language_Design/LD2/wierzbicka.pdf
> where Wierzbicka writes, among other things: "I
> am
> suggesting, then, that while the concept of
> 'feeling'
> is universal and can be safely used in the
> investigation
> of human experience and human nature, [...] the
> concept
> of 'emotion' is culture-bound, and cannot be
> similarly
> relied on."
> 
> One example she gives is the "feeling of
> hunger", which
> is not an "emotion of hunger".

Yeah, "emotion" was a bad choice of word,
probably generated because so many of the
definitions in which FEEL appears are about
emotions.  Your characterization is better.  But
the essential thing is to note that it does not
cover "feel that" constructions.