From Http://Members.Aol.Com/Lassailly/Tunuframe.Html wrote:
> a substantive may be an implied actor through integration (danc-er) or
> semantic connotation (hammer). "dancer" has two possible "handles" : on=
e as
> "person", another as "to dance"; "hammer" as "item" and as "to hammer".=
some
> words have only one "handle" : "end" is always an actor, "me" is always=
an
> item (precisely because it always refers to an actor). even "mouth" has
> implied semantic roles in many situations : speak, eat, yawn, gag, kiss=
,
> drink, etc. it's a question of semantic "sp=E9cialisation" as we say he=
re (but
> apparently not in the US). now, when designing a loglang, you can't pru=
ne all
> those little ennoying "handles" poking out of the nice little sterilize=
d bag
> loglangers put arguments in to isolate them from predicates.
The problem is just to clarify what modifies what in what way.
Usually, as they say, context makes it clear. IMO the point
of a loglang is to refuse to accept that as an answer ... but,
not by over-specifying the common easy cases. Maybe the answer
(my favorite example, English "the" falsely implies "only one")
is to deliberately design the lang to make adding a modifier
as easy as possible, while remaining optional. Most of the time,
ambiguity is OK or a positive good, but sometimes not. It is
a responsibility of the machine to be smart enough to handle this,
rather than forcing the lang to look like C++. As per Grice.
> that's what lawyers do all the time in order to precise whether they sp=
eak of
> the substance or the purpose (use or result) of a word ("fit for purpos=
e").
> this is not making things disambiguous, it's rather picking one of the =
two
> following valencies of a single word : either the substance or the role.
That's it.
> > I don't think it's so much a matter of ease of use, as that a certai=
n
> > level of ambiguity is actually desirable in a language. Aside from =
the
> > fact that *no* ambiguity imposes what I believe to be a false dichot=
omy
> > on reality, it's practicly important to be able to convet concepts w=
hich are
> > inherently ambiguous. So, having a lexicon with no general word for
> > "animal", but thousands of individual words for individual species, =
seems
> > like an implicit denial of any interrelationship between those speci=
es, which
> > is clearly wrong, because all animals are obviously more closely rel=
ated
> > both to other animals and to every animal in some fashion or another.
I agree but even more so ... Sapir/Whorf was right in the strong sense.
The language unconciously imposes a philosophy/metaphysics that is
difficult to see, much less dispute. Fish don't know they're in water.
Ontologies are "clear" to us ... except, maybe they make no sense.
What is an "animal", really? Is a dolphin a fish? A truly log-lang
IMO should take a more neutral position where possible. Then,
when we meet plants that move and eat animals, or animals that just
sit and filter the water, or weirder things yet, we won't be confused
by false deductions built into the language. So, a dolphin is a fish
AND a mammal, mammals are generally NOT fish, but keep the eyes open
and the loglang undogmatic.
> > But moreover, why can't you define a specific
> > mode that means "wanting to do something while you are in your car b=
ecoming
> > irritated by traffic" (or something absurd like that)?
Right, like the example "disembarque" for "to get off a ship".
The newspapers did invent such a word, "road-rage". Fun, huh?
> 50 roles
> or so are most frequently used. complexity is not messy otherwise it wo=
uldn't
> work.
My issue is whether to grammaticalize them or lay them out flat ...
The concept of "having" or "generalized possession" is in English
"'s" and "of" and other genitive constructions; this is convenient,
but sometimes we get lost taking such short-cuts.
> i'm confident that very trivial experiences like "eating" or "wending m=
y way"
> or "i've seen that somewhere already" are fundamental roles rather than=
lofty
> concepts like "agent" or "subject".
Me eat now. Actively, and not by your Tunus.