Print

Print


2015-06-14 23:51 GMT+03:00 Jeffrey Brown <[log in to unmask]>:

> As an example: It is not sufficient to merely create a lexical entry for
> the preposition “in” for a conlang. For a physical context, “in the house”
> or “in the box”, this works fine, but where the trouble occurs is in the
> extensions to abstract contexts. Does “in” extend to temporal durations?
> Can you say “in Tuesday”? Is “in” used for abstract containment: “in the
> king’s speech”, or “in Kant’s philosophy”? Or membership: “in the army”? Or
> fandom: “in the Red Sox” (compare, “he is really into the Red Sox”)?
>
>
This is about metaphorics, something that JQ has probably successfully
defeated in his project.
Three recommendations
1. More precise definitions will help you define meanings.
2. Clearly specifying what can go into each valency place of each verb,
noun of whatever PoS you have: variable type system, strong and weak
typing, linguistic raising etc.
3. Usage examples.
If you provide only vague English glosses then it'd be just a relex of
English to  a certain degree.

Actually although Lojban is a knowledge representation project this
happened to it too exactly due to the lack of usage examples which led to
exegetics of its core wordlist. Luckily, continuous development of Lojban
through usage solved these problems for the most part of the upper ontology
semantic framework.

I could recommend you looking at VerbNet, WordNet and FrameNet although
they are not full solutions to this problem since they have another goal
(not creating a new language for one thing).