Print

Print


This is a very important observation, thank you! I'm now thinking pretty 
hard about how I'd encode this sort of thing. I /very/ much like the 
idea of using 'data copying' as the basis for a Lakoffian metaphor! It's 
a bit hard to get at the subtle difference between 'moving and leaving 
where you were' and 'moving and leaving a copy where you were', but I 
guess it would come out in situations where you can say 'I gave the data 
away' with zero implications of not continuing to possess it.

At the moment, I'm considering using the same base form for both 'be at' 
and 'cause to move' (which in this case would mean 'copy'), with a 
particular set of applicatives used to get at one or the other (eg 'be 
located as digital data/copy digital data' + 'be.encoded.in' > 'exist as 
digital data in/on OBJ'; 'be located as digital data/copy as digital 
data' + 'copy.into' > 'copy digital data into/onto OBJ'. You could then 
use the same duplication applicatives (but not location applicatives!) 
for 'for mud-like substances to move' or 'for a gas to move' or whatever.

I still need to do some thinking, though, about the details of this. I'm 
still not sure how I would handle deletion; and I doubt I'd treat 'move' 
(copy and delete) as a single action. 'Shrink away from' seems like an 
interesting way of thinking about things, but maybe that would apply to 
more cohesive masses like liquids. I don't know.


On 2018/07/25 3:55, And Rosta wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Jul 2018, 09:41 Alex Fink, <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Jul 2018 19:38:03 -0500, Aidan Aannestad <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>>> I'd love some comments! I'm trying to figure out
>>> what kind of pattern would be best for verbs about information - I'm
>>> thinking start with 'be located' as well (e.g. 'for digital information
>>> to be located (eg on a hard drive)'), but maybe with different
>>> morphology to derive other forms. It'd be nice to have relatively simple
>>> derivations for 'give information' and maybe 'have information in a
>>> thing' (maybe with a special 'be encoded in' applicative). I'm sure
>>> there are other relevant verb classes to think about.
>> There's one fact about information which I would want to be sure to
>> encapsulate in a language like this.  Unlike all the familiar physical
>> objects we tend to use as metaphors for it, information has the property
>> that *copying* it is more fundamental than *moving* it.  If you "move
>> information from A to B" you have actually done a composite operation:
>> you've copied it from A to B, and then erased it from A.  So I think, if
>> the behaviour of information is meant to be baked into the lexico-semantic
>> heart of this language, that deserves a new suffix paradigm.  Sure, you
>> could just declare that the derived form which compositionally ought to
>> mean 'to move information' actually means 'to copy information', but that
>> would feel like missing a trick to me.  Then you could e.g. extend the new
>> suffix paradigm to other things which sooner spread than cleanly displace
>> themselves, like gases, or mud tracked in the house, or infections, or
>> laughter.  And you could use it as the basis of Lakoffian cognitive
>> metaphors where familiar languages use motion (can't think of a good
>> concrete example now, though).
>>
> Regarding kinds of location change, whereas motion towards and motion away
> from may straightforwardly be unified as motion along a path, allative
> spreading (towards) seems more distinct from ablative shrinking (away com).
> So the paradigm should include shrinking.
>
> --And.
>