[lojban] Re: semantic primes

["Jorge Llambías" <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On 3/24/06, John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> 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 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.

> > 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.

  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 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.)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


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.