Re: Bootstrapping a cooperative conlang

MorphemeAddict@WMCONNECT.COM wrote:
> In a message dated 11/17/2007 11:42:33 PM Central Standard Time,
> hmiller@IO.COM writes:
>
>
>> Well, one interpretation of the meaning of "mouse", at any rate. Which
>> kinds of mouse does the definition include? The English word "mouse"
>> refers somewhat vaguely to a whole range of small rodents, not all
>> closely related, while implicitly excluding related animals such as
>> voles, hamsters, and gerbils. (In older usage, you might also find
>> "shrew mouse" referring to shrews, which aren't even rodents.) Then
>> there's the mouse vs. rat distinction; at what size is the line drawn?
>>
>
> Exactly.  "Mouse" is not limited to the taxonomic group _Mus_.  The English
> word does include various kinds of small rodents, and excludes others.  These
> details are necessary for giving the whole meaning of the word.  It's somewhat
> vague, and that vagueness and where it's vague are also parts of the
> definition.
So is the intended purpose of this system a way of documenting the
various usages of a word in a particular variety of language? Or are
there various parts of the definition that explain how the meaning of
the word varies over time and in different dialects?

> Even if the language develops without recourse to specific meanings of
> specific natlang words, such as "mouse", I think it would be a Very Good Idea to use
> NSM as the base vocabulary and go from there.
> Wierzbicka et al. have been working on NSM for a long time, and we should
> take advantage of their work, rather than reinventing the wheel.
If you've identified a group of potential collaborators who are all
familiar with Wierzbicka's work, and who have the time and level of
interest to write definitions in that style for all the words you're
going to need, that could be an interesting thing to try. I just think
that having to learn a technical set of words for basic meanings, and
how to use them, is likely to be intimidating to just about anyone who
might want to participate.

Say that you want to define a word "fur" to use in your definition of
"mouse". Looking at the semantic primitives, I don't really have much of
a clue where to start. Probably "fur" is too high a level and it needs
to be broken down into something like "dense hair", where "dense" could
ultimately be built from "near" and "touching" and "many/much" in some
way. There's still a big gap between the semantic primitives and
something as fundamental for animal definitions as "hair".

I don't think this is unique to animal definitions -- try defining
"rock", or "sun", or "dark". If it's hard to understand how to build
these definitions, it will be hard to find if a word you need is already
defined. An illustrated index of defined words would be useful, but if
you've got that, the illustrations alone might be a better place to
start with.

Say that someone wants a word for "guitar" -- you first need definitions
for words like "string", "fret", and various other parts of the
instrument, along with a description of the general shape and size. Or
you could just take a picture of a guitar and upload it. Then if there's
enough interest that it becomes important whether a ukulele or a banjo
falls under the definition of "guitar", there could be a discussion
which ends up producing a more detailed definition.

Reply