Re: Concept_sitting

Erbrice wrote:
> yes like and love is an concept to me
> (in french it's on word)
> It's very interesting to remark that for you love is a big "like"
> ebs
As I say it simply does not work for me in _English_. If, however, your
'concepts' are rooted in the French language, i.e. you do not want to
split 'love', but the French 'aimer', then it surely shows how
culturally biased such splitting is.

It has often been observed that the one English word 'love' is expressed
by three different words in ancient Greek: agape, eros, philia.

The three Greek terms do not mean the same. Are we say that 'love'
expresses at least three different concepts in English and that French
'aimer' expresses four or more?
==========================================

Erbrice wrote:
 > yes but how do you split "chair", is it a concept ?

Certainly in Platonic philosophy _he kathedra aute_ is a concept or 'idea'.

If this thread is to be meaningful, I think you need to define what it
is that you mean by 'concept' and by 'splitting', because I am becoming
quite confused, especially as......
============================================

Erbrice wrote:
 > Le 14 janv. 09 à 21:34, Amanda Babcock Furrow a écrit :
 >
 >> On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 08:23:22PM +0000, R A Brown wrote:
 >>
 >>> David J. Peterson wrote:
 >>>> The task you're doing can be done to any concept pretty much
 >>>> however you see fit.  If "rain" is "sky + water", perhaps "sky" is
 >>>> "up + air".
 >>>
 >>> True - the splitting could in fact go on ad_infinitum. We could
 >>> certainly split 'air' and, I guess, if one wanted to, it wouldn't
be too
 >>> difficult to split 'up'. 'water', of course, can be readily split.
 >>
 >> One might wish to make a language in which every concept is expressed as
 >> a combination of semantic primes - but primes which are no longer
 >> meaningful in isolation!  So "rain" would be the archaic words for "sky"
 >> and "water", but "sky" would instead be the archaic words for "up" and
 >> "air"... etc.
 > You hardly split air, you could only if you speak on a particule point
 > of view.

Sorry - you could easily split up 'air' if you wished to and do that
without recourse to chemistry!

 > But you easily split computer as the chinese "electric brain" does

Except, of course, a computer ain't a brain     :)

 > obvously there are things you can split and things not....

It is *not* obvious. If it were obvious then surely those who have tried
to construct languages from semantic primitives - e.g. George Dalgarno
with his "Universal Character", John Wilkins with his "Real Character",
Edward Powell Foster with "Ro" etc.- might have had greater success.
====================================

Sai Emrys wrote:
 > On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Erbrice <erbrice@...> wrote:
[snip]
 >> that's makes like in chinese no translation of words but translationS.
 >>
 >> My pupose is to be able to communicate with far cultures (kilometers or
 >> disabilities)
 >
 > .... huh?
 >
 > I have no idea what those two lines were supposed to mean.

I can not make sense of the first line either. I assume in the second
Erbrice is saying he does not what his language to be culturally biased.
If so things like being guided by the fact that French 'aimer' can
correspond to English 'like' or 'love' is hardly the way to go about it IMO.

 > You might have better luck writing in French; some of us speak it.

Yes, indeed! And many more of us can read French.

Personally I am utterly now utterly confused by what Erbrice means by
'concept' and why, e.g. _air_ cannot be 'split' while _rain_ can?

--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
CENEDL HEB IAITH, CENEDL HEB GALON.
(A nation without a language is a
nation without a heart)
[Welsh proverb]
--
Ray
==================================
http://www.carolandray.plus.com
==================================
CENEDL HEB IAITH, CENEDL HEB GALON.
(A nation without a language is a
nation without a heart)
[Welsh proverb]