Re: Bootstrapping a cooperative conlang
| From: | <morphemeaddict@...> |
|---|
| Date: | Sunday, November 18, 2007, 23:01 |
|---|
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.
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.
stevo </HTML>
Replies