From iad@MATH.BAS.BG Sun Dec 03 10:54:40 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: iad@math.bas.bg X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 18:54:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 97119 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 18:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 18:54:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lnd.internet-bg.net) (212.124.64.2) by mta2 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 18:54:37 -0000 Received: from math.bas.bg (ppp93.internet-bg.net [212.124.66.93]) by lnd.internet-bg.net (8.9.3/8.9.0) with ESMTP id UAA14935 for ; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 20:57:06 +0200 Message-ID: <3A2A94F8.A7C0915C@math.bas.bg> Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 20:46:16 +0200 X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.74 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] common words References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Ivan A Derzhanski Jorge Llambias wrote: > la ivAn cusku di'e > >{to'e} means scalar opposite, which is not the same thing > >as reversal of the effect of an action, right? > > It isn't? No, it isn't. 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'. There is a similarity, but on a deeper level: the representation of `encode' as `cause to become encoded' and of `decode' as `cause to become encoded' employs the scalar opposites ` : '. That said, I'm inclined to think that the deep-level opposition is a {na'e} one, not a {to'e} one. 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). Question is, how can you express deep-level negation without having access to the semantic decomposition? --Ivan