From jjllambias@hotmail.com Sun Dec 03 11:20:04 2000 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-6_3_1_2); 3 Dec 2000 19:20:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 60122 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2000 19:20:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2000 19:20:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.229) by mta1 with SMTP; 3 Dec 2000 19:20:00 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Sun, 3 Dec 2000 11:20:00 -0800 Received: from 200.42.117.115 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Sun, 03 Dec 2000 19:20:00 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.42.117.115] To: lojban@egroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] common words Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 19:20:00 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Dec 2000 19:20:00.0427 (UTC) FILETIME=[07B957B0:01C05D5E] From: "Jorge Llambias" 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 encoded' and of `decode' >as `cause to become encoded' employs the scalar opposites >` : '. 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