[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: semantics ...
- Subject: Re: semantics ...
- From: Christopher Reid Palmer <reid@pconline.com>
- Date: Sat, 10 Apr 1999 19:18:23 -0500
Robin Turner wrote:
> > A thought. The primary constraint on gismu definitions is that they conform
> > to their place structures. It is possible that if you adequately define
> > the semantics of the place structures you will have defined the gismu.
> > That this would be adequate has been an assumption of mine. This is, I
> > think, unlike what is possible with non-predicate languages. (I hope this
> > thought is not too incoherent).
I am sympathetic towards this view myself.
> How then would you distinguish between {blanu} and {crino}? Same
> place-structure, different meanings.
But the meanings of what go in the places are different. (Note that if
you define meaning as 'place structure' -- which is to say, a usage
pattern -- then you have to assume that any place-filler is (at least
prototypically) a predicate itself.)
innerfire.visi.com/pala-kalloejna/Namespaces.html
-- Chris
_____________________________________________________________________________
Christopher Reid Palmer : reid@pconline.com : http://innerfire.visi.com/