To: | doug@xxxxxxxxxx, "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
---|---|
From: | William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx> |
Date: | Tue, 21 May 2013 16:21:30 -0400 |
Message-id: | <CALuUwtBMcbskMb+iuuhhmbKJ4Lj5XZXtWBHrCAdwwPVG1X5ENw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
On Tue, May 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, doug foxvog <doug@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I do believe that this misses the intended point. It is not the individual english words that are the problem, but rather the inference that each word has a separate meaning, or that clusers of english words, like 'has a', have any specific, non-contextual meaning, Not chinese, the set of words, but the analytic,(highly semantically factored) nature of the language, is the feautuire of importance.
Agreed.
A perfect example. There is only one event, a purchase-and-sale (called such in the securities business). This event has multiple roles, buyer, seller, broker, venue, regulator. Synthentic languages indicate the roles by cases, analytic languages by positions and prepositions, and hyper-analitic by fully factor role words. English is a mish mash of these semantic strategies, and not a good model for the elegance of simplicity. It is the application of English's largely positional strategy that requies you to have different words for buy and sell. -- William Frank 413/376-8167 _________________________________________________________________ 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] Consensus on labeling of relationships?, William Frank |
---|---|
Next by Date: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Consensus on labeling of relationships?, Tom Knorr |
Previous by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Consensus on labeling of relationships?, William Frank |
Next by Thread: | Re: [ontolog-forum] Consensus on labeling of relationships?, doug foxvog |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |