[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Semantic Primitives (continued)

Without defending NSM, I should point out that what they mean by "define" is 
rather peculiar to them, not the usual verbal equivalence but something more 
like context building.  As for the adequacy of their set of concepts, they claim 
to have tested it on xty x different languages and refined their list against 
the problems and successes in these trials.  So (assuming the data isn't too 
badly hoaxed) they have empirical evidence -- which could, of course, be 
overthrown by the next language, or at least modified.




----- Original Message ----
From: tijlan <jbotijlan@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, April 25, 2011 5:02:58 AM
Subject: [lojban] Semantic Primitives (continued)

On 23 April 2011 14:16, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
> Circularity is avoidable. That's the whole point of Anna Wierzbicka's
> Natural Semantic Metalanguage, which assumes a small number (~62) of 'words'
> that can't be defined in terms of simpler words.

2011/4/24 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:22 AM, MorphemeAddict <lytlesw@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Apr 23, 2011 at 2:04 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_semantic_metalanguage
>>>
>>> I also don't think they're very well chosen, as a lot of them are easy to
>>> define without circularity.
>>
>> Really? Which ones? How would you define them?
>
> The ones I always found a bit surprizing were the pairs GOOD - BAD,
> BIG - SMALL, A LONG TIME - A SHORT TIME, NEAR - FAR, when one in each
> pair could easily be defined in terms of the other: OPPOSITE-OF GOOD,
> OPPOSITE-OF BIG, OPPOSITE-OF A-LONG-TIME, OPPOSITE-OF NEAR.
>
> They don't have OPPOSITE-OF as a primitive, but presumably it must be
> definable in terms of primitives (although it's not easy to see how).
> And even if you needed to use BAD, SMALL, A SHORT TIME and FAR to
> define OPPOSIT-OF, it would still be more economical to have
> OPPOSITE-OF as the primitive instead of the other four.
>
> Also, couldn't A-SHORT-TIME and A-LONG-TIME not be just SMALL
> FOR-SOME-TIME and BIG FOR-SOME-TIME?

Likewise, DIE could be OPPOSITE-OF-LIVE HAPPEN or NOT-LIVE HAPPEN.
Depending on the culture, it might be even that DEAD be the basis for
BORN or NOT-DEAD HAPPEN.

Why is TRUE not among "logical concepts", especially in relation to NOT?

Why should MOMENT be distinct from WHEN/TIME or VERY-SHORT TIME?

Boguswafski might have implied OPPOSITE-OF when he didn't couple MORE
with LESS on the same row. Similarly, he put in LIKE/WAY alone without
its probable counterpart, DIFFERENT. And there are KIND, SAME, and
OTHER in other categories; I wonder why all these couldn't belong to
the same category.

Shouldn't there be EXPRESS or REPRESENT, regarding which SAY could be
resolved into WORD EXPRESS? Could SYMBOL not be more primitive than
WORD? Why should WORD be plural as Boguswafski puts it? Could WORDS
not be SOME/MANY WORD?

Could PEOPLE not be defined as SOME/MANY PERSON? Could PERSON not be a
derivative of THING with MENTAL?

Are connectives not primitive?
I-{e}-YOU for WE (in the sense of {mi'o}),
ONE-{joi}-ONE for TWO,
NOT FAR-{a}-NEAR for HERE,
NOT BEFORE-{a}-AFTER for NOW,
THING-SAME PLACE-{e}-TIME-NOT-SAME HAPPEN for MOVE,
and so on. Very productive. Why not on the list?


On 24 April 2011 18:14, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I also don't think they're very well chosen, as a lot of them are easy to
>>> define without circularity.
>>
>> Really? Which ones? How would you define them?
>
>
> Well, I and YOU, for a start. Lojban defines those as "the speaker" and "the
> listener", respectively.

To use the terms on the list:
speaker = SAY-DO THING
listener = HEAR-DO THING

These might then belong to the "Relational Substantives", for there
can't be a speech listener without a speech speaker.

Lojban has also "others", which may include what Boguswafski calls
SOMETHING/THING.


mu'o

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.