On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Garth Wallace <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> "Part of speech". Or "word class", or "lexical category", etc. At
> least if I'm understanding you correctly.

I'm referring more to the method of collecting sets. Besides, each of
those terms is already loaded down with specific meanings, so if I use
them to describe something different there will be no end of

And apparently I'm not doing too good a job of getting my idea across.
Things like "part of speech" are similar, but the criteria for placing
a word in one part of speech or another is different. If I said that a
possessive pronoun and a definite article were the same part of speech
people would think I was incredibly stupid. But I CAN say that with
respect a particular specified template possessive pronouns and
definite articles CAN BE isotactic. So "part of speech" doesn't cut

Also, I'm interested in sets of words that are BOTH grammatically AND
semantically _sensible_ in the specified context. "Part of speech" and
"word class" don't cut it, because a given word which has a single
"part of speech" in English could well belong to many different
isotactic sets. And that's also not how "part of speech" works.


On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:10 AM, René Uittenbogaard <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> selma'o?
> René

Yes, that's close. I don't like that word, though. ;-)