Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:44 PMEd, Barkmeyer wrote:
''In linguistic terms, the idea is that "synonym" means "term with closely
related meaning", not "term with identical meaning". As a consequence,
"synonym of" is not necessarily a transitive relationship.'' (01)
Ed,
You raised an interesting matter, and rather strange that this principal
issue in semantics has been overlooked by our hyperactive disputant. Another
aside note, i think, Mathew must be well aware what the tree structure
means. (02)
Re. synonyms, try and think other way round; namely, synonymity is the
semantic relation marked by transitivity, as other semantic relationships:
hypernymy, hyponymy, holonymy and meronymy. (03)
As far as synonyms are a number of terms (concepts) sharing common
significance (meaning) and as far as ''synonymous'' covers all that is
''equivalent or similar or like'', they may (or must) fall under an
equivalence relation, a special kind of order and relation, distinguished by
reflexivity, symmetry and transitivity. Actually, synonymy can be formally
modeled by a sort of equivalence relation, named Euclidean relation, named
so after Euclid's common notion 1: (04)
''Things (terms) which are equal the same thing (in meaning) also equal one
another.'' (05)
So, to some extent and degree, within certain limits, synonymous or
synonymic terms are equivalent, identical, interchangeable, and always
similar in meaning. The qualifier, ''within certain limits'', makes a whole
sense; for significance (or meaning) comprises two parts, denotation and
connotation, as much as meaning consists of reference, extension and sense,
intension). In general, your synonyms may be identical in extension but
differing in connotation, not vice versa. But when the context is strictly
delimited and determined, your synonyms are equivalent both is denotation
and connotation, like it should happen in narrow technical contexts and
agreements and contracts. (06)
Summing up: (07)
1. In Semantics, THE CONTEXT IS THE MASTER .
2. The so-called synsets, as WordNet synsets, can be formally modelled as
equivalence classes of terms ''equivalent'' in one or more meanings,
obtained by the partition of a universe of terms by the equivalence
relation. (08)
azamat abdoullaev
more on the nature of semantics and ontology see
http://www.igi-pub.com/books/details.asp?id=7641 (09)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Barkmeyer" <edbark@xxxxxxxx>
To: <edbark@xxxxxxxx>; "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 8:44 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] what words mean (010)
> Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
>
>> Every tree (structure) is a partial ordering, but not every partial
>> ordering is a tree. What John meant is that in his model, the partial
>> orderings are not restricted to tree structures -- they can be
>> generalized lattices with multiple roots.
>
> To be clearer, a "lattice" is directed graph in which a (child) node can
> have more than one incoming (parent) arc. A "generalized lattice" just
> removes the idea that there is a single "root" node.
>
> In linguistic terms, the idea is that "synonym" means "term with closely
> related meaning", not "term with identical meaning". As a consequence,
> "synonym of" is not necessarily a transitive relationship. It is
> possible for a single term to "refine" or "closely relate to" two or
> more other terms that are not themselves (considered) synonyms. Roget's
> symnets include many things I think of as dubious "synonyms", but one
> cannot deny that there is some significant overlap of meaning.
>
> (The telephone game does not really require some intermediary to choose
> the wrong interpretation of a term; it simply requires the "synonymous"
> rewordings to drift gradually away from the original intent.)
>
> -Ed
>
> --
> Edward J. Barkmeyer Email: edbark@xxxxxxxx
> National Institute of Standards & Technology
> Manufacturing Systems Integration Division
> 100 Bureau Drive, Stop 8263 Tel: +1 301-975-3528
> Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8263 FAX: +1 301-975-4694
>
> "The opinions expressed above do not reflect consensus of NIST,
> and have not been reviewed by any Government authority."
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (011)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (012)
|