Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: compilation of Glosa's semantic primes

wilko dijkhuis ("wilko dijkhuis" <w.dijkhuis@...>) on September 24, 2006

Alo Bill,

Nice idea (what is the URL of your wiki?). This is a good exampl= e of the serious use of artificial languages I would like to see more of.

= My first impression of Glosa is that we can say a lot using only a 1000 Glo= sa words. That seems to imply that Glosa words are strongly semantically ov= erloaded (one word can be used in various ways, has multiple meanings). So = I am curious, what makes you think Glosa would fit the bill?

PS. Why not t= ranslate “some” as “two_or_more” or “two_or_more_but_not_most”?

Bon voles= .


— In, “William T. Branch” <bill@…>= wrote:

Hello All,

I’ve written both Cliff Goddard and Ann Wierzbe= ka a thank you letter for their work. I’ve also joined their mailing lis= t and started a nsm wiki. I am currently compiling the primes from glosa= to present to the NSM community as a tool for their research. I’m still= trying to get a complete understanding of how glosa would contribute to= their research.

I have a few ideas. Basically the study of primes wo= uld benefit from a language with no baggage attached to the primes. For = example the English word “someone” has a meaning which does not break do= wn to “some one” or even “some person”. According to the NSM folks, “som= eone” is a prime in it’s own right. Also the word “touch” means various = things; the NSM meaning, just one. When formulating explications, NSM re= searhers would benefit from a language that is clean from other language=

idiosyncrasies. In this way the researcher would not un-intentionally

use a word because of the words secondary meaning and thus cause confusio= n.

The question is, does Glosa fit the bill. I don’t know the answer y= et, but I see a few issues. I would like to have a strong case for the = usefulness of Glosa to the NSM folks before I present it.

In any cas= e, I’m compiling the words now, and will present them to this list for r= eview. Currently, I’m stuck on the word for “some”. According to the dic= tionary it is either, “no-polio” or “oligo”.

“Oligo” means few or seve= ral. This seams to bar it from being a prime. This meaning to me covers = a range from, more then two to just being short of all.

“no-polio” = may work, but being a compound word, it seems to cause the confusion we’= re trying to avoid. If we decide compounds are OK for all opposites then= we must be consistant on all primes that are opposites such as “above” = and “below”. And if this is done, how would you be consistent with which= word gets to stand on it’s own, and which must have the prefix?

Th= ese are the questions, I know will be asked of us If Glosa is presented = to the NSM community as a proposed test-bed language.

Any help would b= e appreciated for compiling this list. I have some words started on the = wiki. All are welcome to add to it.

Unfortunately, I have just a few m= inutes a day, but I’m making steady progress. I work often 80 hours a we= ek and help take care of my four young children. So linguistics is a hob= by I have little time for. But I spend some time on it every week. I wil= l try finishing this compilation as soon as I can.

Regards, Bill = branch

Fast links: Interglossa » Glosa »

Re: compilation of Glosa's semantic primes - Committee on language planning, FIAS. Coordination: Vergara & Hardy, PhDs.