Re: [lojban] common words

["Jorge Llambias" <jjllambias@hotmail.com>]

la ivAn cusku di'e

> The main difference is that scalar opposites
> are essentially symmetrical, whereas antonyms of the type
> `act : undo effect of action' are not; `decode' means `undo
> the effect of encoding', but `encode' does not mean `undo the
> effect of decoding'.

Only because you are taking the unencoded state as the natural
starting point. In "decoding the human genome" there is no
undoing of a previous encoding, is there? I can view the two
actions as symmetrical.

> There is a similarity, but on a deeper level:  the representation
> of `encode' as `cause to become <pos> encoded' and of `decode'
> as `cause to become <neg> encoded' employs the scalar opposites
> `<pos> : <neg>'.

That's another way of looking at it, but I wonder what would
be the zero point of "encoded" in that case.

> That said, I'm inclined to think that the deep-level opposition
> is a {na'e} one, not a {to'e} one.

Right. But do/undo are scalar opposites to me, because there is
a non-do midpoint.

> When you paint something
> white, undoing the action means removing the paint and restoring
> the status quo (making it {na'e} painted), not painting it
> {to'e} white (that is, black).

I agree, "opposite of (painting white)" is not equivalent
to "painting (opposite of white)".

> Question is, how can you express deep-level negation
> without having access to the semantic decomposition?

One possibility is to recognize that in some cases deep
level negation can surface as opposition.

co'o mi'e xorxes


_____________________________________________________________________________________
Get more from the Web.  FREE MSN Explorer download : http://explorer.msn.com