Print

Print


--- [log in to unmask] wrote:

> In a message dated 11/16/2007 1:56:43 PM Central Standard Time, 
> [log in to unmask] writes:
> 
> 
> > I'm reminded of Wierzbicka's NSM definition of "mouse" which runs 33 lines 
> > of
> > text with 355 words*, covering such things as category, habitat, size,
> > appearance, etc. etc., all to narrow down the concept until "mouse" is the 
> > only
> > thing that fits the bill. While theoretically fascinating, for the purpose
> of
> > building a practical language for everyday use, a simple picture of a mouse
> > would have sufficed. A picture truely is worth 355 words in this instance. 
> > 
> 
> Her explication of "mouse" is so long because the meaning is so complex.  A 
> picture of a mouse could also mean lots of different things, such as just 
> "animal", or "pest", or the color of the mouse (if not black and white).
> 
> For the explication of a word in this new language, they need not have all 
> the detail of the corresponding English word.  The detail could be added 
> separately.
> 
> stevo
> 

Easily solved: The dictionary definition would consist of a picture of a mouse
with the caption, "Mouse: the animal pictured above."

--gary