Subject: Re: [lojban] common words

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Dec 2000 19:20:00

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