Re: Natural Semantic Metalanguage
|From:||Petr Mejzlík <imploder@...>|
|Date:||Friday, November 16, 2007, 17:09|
I think what they propose on that page is a bad and hardly feasible
approach to semantics. I've criticized it here:
and also in this ZBB thread:
I haven't read any of their books, I just consider what's on that page.
Maybe there's more to it but this page simply says the words listed there
are "semantically primitive" (but I don't see any way they really are, and
why specifically these words) followed by quotes of "credible scientists"
to support it. The idea itself looks crappy or at least unclear. I don't
know what you all find so amazing in it.
Dne Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:33:45 +0100 Gary Shannon <fiziwig@...>
> But on that page he does not give the "canonical contexts" which would
> exemplify the region of semantic space occupied by each prime, so it
> might take
> some digging through the published works listed in the bibliography. The
> problem is the prices of those books. Yikes!!!!
>Indeed, I also see this flaw. It looks like an excuse for that the
meanings actually don't match. I may be wrong but I wildly guess that by
"canonical context" they mean something like central meaning.