|From:||Simon Spero <sesuncedu@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Tue, 2 Apr 2013 18:23:28 -0400|
On Tue, Apr 2, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Barkmeyer, Edward J <edward.barkmeyer@xxxxxxxx> wrote:|
There is nothing inaccurate about having the term "pineapple tree" in your ontology. The inaccuracy would be in saying that it is a subtype of "tree", assuming that we all agree on the definition of "tree". The assumption that the word "tree" appearing in the term "pineapple tree" implies some well-defined relationship is unwarranted. This is the kind of thing that comes from trying to guess what is meant by looking at natural language cues. Sometimes you guess wrong!
The meaning of the phrase pineapple tree is endocentric - that is to say, the meaning of the whole is derived from its constituent parts.
It is is about as close to canonical an English noun-noun compound as they get (which isn't very).
1. It is right headed (tree is the head noun, and pineapple is the modifier).
2. The specialization in meaning obtained via the modifier is the prototypical specialization for other modifiers in the same general category (an apple tree is a tree on which apples grow; a cherry tree is a tree on which cherries grow.
3. If pineapples grew on trees, they would grow on pineapple trees.
There is considerable difference between pineapple tree and syntax tree ; one would not expect to be able to build a tree house in the latter, nor to hang a bird house from its branches.
Fake diamond is much more complicated to analyze. Syntactically, diamond is still the head, but semantically, modifier fake carries with it the partial meaning that it is something that has a very strong superficial resemblance to a real diamond, but which lacks some critical property. The common super-ordinate category would appear to be things which resemble diamonds.
More complicated still is the case of toys. A toy dog is a toy shaped like a dog, but a toy poodle is a dog (and a dog toy is a toy for use by dogs).
For more fun, consider White tigers, Paper tigers, Paper Airplanes, and Model airplanes.
For one take on just N-N compounds, http://books.google.com/books/about/Ordered_Chaos.html?id=veBBTN6PwU4C
_________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology for Climate Change - need input, doug foxvog|
|Next by Date:||[ontolog-forum] Vespucci / IAOA Summer Institute, Michael Gruninger|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Why a data model does not an ontology make, Kingsley Idehen|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Compound nouns, Barkmeyer, Edward J|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|