Re: semantics

[Robin Turner <robin@bilkent.edu.tr>]

la pablov. cusku di'e

> coi rodo
>
>         You are right, Robin. The division between defining and typical features is
> essential to the analysis of this problem.
>         I have some points that I would like to express, but they all depend on one
> aspect of lojban that is not very clear to me: Are lojban words defined by
> the typical ENGLISH features?

A good question.  Firstly, I would claim that words are defined by their defining
features (in the model I proposed) i.e. their "hard semantic core" (I forget who coined
that phrase - could have been Aitchison).  Defining features need to be chosen from
those which are common to as many languages/cultures as possible.

> When you say "...before going multilingual
> with the gismu list (which it is high time we did) we need to think
> carefully about our lexicography." I perceive that you are affirming my
> question.

Yes, if I have undestood it correctly.

> But, at the same time, this would be strange, since lojban has
> always aimed to be a "culturally neutral" language.

Hence my point.  I think the compilers of the gismu list did their best to choose
concepts that had equivalents in as many languages as possibele (certainly the six
source languages), but unless you know a language really well, there is always a risk
that the equivalent isn't really that equivalent.  This is where we can learn much from
linguists doing extensive cross-cultural work, like Wierzbicka.

co'o mi'e robin.