Print

Print


Hi!

John Quijada <[log in to unmask]> writes:
> Ah! I think I see your point now.  You're saying that because the word
> translatable as "mean" is, say,  <root A + degree 1> and the word
> translatable as "nice" would be <root A + degree 9> then eventually the
> application of degree this way across the lexical spectrum from root to
> root causes a speaker to begin subjectively associating Degree 1 with
> negative or unwanted things, and Degree 9 with positive/desirable things.
> Thus, any root which utilizes Degree 1 eventually comes to be judged as an
> unpleasant thing, no matter what it means, right?

Yes!

Hmm, your explanation of this is much shorter and concise than
mine. :-)))

> Are you suggesting that speakers will ignore the context of these
> sentences in favor of the subjective bias you speak of?

No, the situation may be clear, but they will probably feel a bias in
general.  Even 'bad' can be good if used in the right context.  But
this does not change the general negative association.  It may be
neglectible in certain contexts, but not in others that are meant to
be neutral.  I just don't see how to can assign +1 to one end of the
continuum and -1 to the other without being bias, since the other way
around it would be feasible as well.  The choice which direction you
assign it already is a bias in my opinion.

> After all, there are as many contexts where "hot" is desirable and
> "cold" is undesirable as there are where the reverse is the case.

But the scale is really not 'temperature', but 'hotness', if you will.
And it is 'niceness' etc.  This identifies concepts that should not be
identified if you aim at neutrality.

> As for the "male/female" example you spoke of, such an example would not
> apply here, since Ithkuil lexicalizes such sets based on semantic
> COMPLEMENTARITY, not opposition,

Ah, yes, sorry, I oversaw that.

**Henrik