Print

Print


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

---snip---
>
> "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
confusion.

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
it.

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?
>
> http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/selma%27o
>
> René
>

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

--gary