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:
>
<snip>


> 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
>
I think this is an excellent idea. Have any collections of definitions been
published anywhere? I'd be really curious to see the NSM definition of "music",
or "electric", or "play" as in "Children like to play."

One way I would differ with the NSM approach is that not every word would have
to be defined in terms of semantic primes. Once various basic non-prime words
had been defined I would want to define additional words in terms of those
non-primes. In other words, if I have already defined "frizlap" as "musical
instrument" I wouldn't want the definition of "violin" to repeat all the
verbiage that defines "frizlap", but simply to use "frizlap" in the definition
of "violin".

--gary