On 20 August 2016 at 11:16, A Walker Scott <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 3:49 AM, Leo Moser <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> Do any of you folks see 'parts of speech' and 'semantic domains' to be >> possibly related? >> Does each semantic domain require at least one word of each part of speech >> to function properly.? >> Are we missing the true meaning of 'parts of speech'? >> Are there languages that do this? > > I don't see any relationship between the concepts of part of speech and > semantic domain. However certain specific semantic domains may have a > disproportionate representation of one POS or another, depending on the > grammar of the language in question, because of the semantic properties of > that specific domain. E.g., actions tend to be verbs, properties tend to be adjectives, substantives tend to be nouns, etc. There are lots of exceptions going both ways, however, which is one reason why semantic definitions of parts of speech don't hold up very well. Additionally, semantics domains can be endlessly divided into smaller and more precise chunks; and while you can get pretty finicky about parts of speech as well, the divisions just don't match up beyond a very high, abstract level like "actions", "states", and "the rest". I could, for example, imagine a language having a part of speech that highly correlates with "vehicles" or "modes of transport"- say, some distinct syntactic class of words that patterns with motion verbs- but a language that has specific parts of speech for "space vehicles" vs. "airplanes" vs. "wheeled vehicles" seems *extremely* weird and unlikely, despite the fact that those are all perfectly valid semantic domains. -l.