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).