Re: basic question

i see what your getting it, because
abstract terms are not really separated from concrete terms,
they are abstracted. ok but what means abstrahation ?
its simple: abstractions summarize commonesses.
some attributes of common things are extracted and put together
in a new word.
example : we summarize the attribute of "the age of 20-29" up
in the term "twens". all other attributes,e.g. "hair color" are ignored.
that ignoration of details makes abstract-terms more unimaginable or
simply "more abstract".
now what we need is an crterium to create an *exact border* to separate the so-called abstract
terms from the concrete ones, which are in truth just "more abtract
terms".
abstraction ~ category ~ generalization.


abstract terms are mere notional terms.
like: life,death,time,love
lover becomes therefore a concrete term, since
it is bound to a personification of love,
which is perceptable with at least one of our 5 senses.

birds is concrete.
politician is concrete.

but anyway, a good organization of vokabulary doesnt split "politics"
from "politician" and thats whats more important than the border
between "abstract" and "concrete".

i found some nice attempt to organize at least the most important
words at "duttons speedwords" he creates nice categories, though not
always logical sober, it shows what is possible with abit compassion.

i think organizing vokabulary is an essential step for compressing
semantics and reducing redundancy but is too much for one person to be
done alone.

e.g. just the category "spatial relations" can cause some brainache
to become completely analysized:

   SPATIAL DEPTH: /front/back/behind/rear/
   more-front-than;       front-relative-to      in front of
   more-back-than;        back-relative-to       behind

   SPATIAL VERTICAL: /top/bottom/high/low/
   more-high-than;        high-relative-to       above,over,beyond
   more-low-than;         low-relative-to        under,underneath,below,beneath

   SPATIAL HORIZONTAL: /left/right/beside/
   more-right-than;       right-relative-to       to the right of
   more-left-than;        left-relative-to        to the left of
   more-horizontal-than;  horizontal-relative-to  beside of  (right + left)

to name just 3 kinds.

waiting for:
inside/within,outside,along,arround,across,at,in,onto,through etc..

if there is any project already done concerning this i would be happy
to hear about.

regards,
c.s.





DP> In a message dated 6/10/01 1:33:04 PM, claudio.soboll@GMX.DE writes:

DP> << you confront me with rare exceptions, but ok... >>

DP>     Oh, there are many exceptions.  How about "my aunt Teri"?  You don't know
DP> what she looks like.  You don't even know what I look like, so you wouldn't
DP> even be able to guess--especially since she isn't even related by blood to
DP> me.  Yet, we have no problem understanding its concreteness.  Just like "the
DP> man on Mars", "a loquacious beaver", or (to borrow from Nabokov) "a didactic
DP> katydid".  But this is not easy to get around, though.  You trust that my
DP> aunt Teri is a real person with a real body in this real world, and that's
DP> enough.  (I suppose lying isn't allowed in this language?)

DP> <<thats my opinion,
DP> abstraction in this context is characterized through its
un-imaginableness.>>>

DP>     Here, you will run into problems again.  How about the word "bird"?  That
DP> seems concrete enough, right?  But, just what is a bird?  A thing with wings
DP> that flies?  What about penguins and chickens that don't fly?  What about
DP> kiwis that don't have wings?  But aside from that, can you call up a picture
DP> when confronted with the word "bird"?  I certainly can, but there is no bird
DP> simply called "bird", and the image that most Americans conjure up with the
DP> word "bird" is something like a sparrow (pasero domesticus).  Seems to be a
DP> standard bird.  But really, how can this word "bird" exist if it refers to
DP> this whole group of things, some of which are very, very different looking
DP> (compare the crow and the ostrich)?  And how come we still come up with a
DP> mental picture, even if some birds don't fit in with that picture?  So, I
DP> posit the question: Is "bird" a concrete or abstract word?  Or, would you
DP> avoid the mess by simply destroying all superordinate categories sucer I
DP> mentioned this before, how, if uncurtailed, you would have to come up with a
DP> different specific word for every living thing on the planet, including each
DP> blade of grass, probably each atom, if you get down to the really basic
DP> level.  Anyway, do you see what I'm getting at?

DP> -David

Reply