Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site sdcc6.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcc6!ir44
From: ir44@sdcc6.UUCP (Theodore Schwartz)
Newsgroups: net.ai,net.nlang
Subject: Re: natural language deficiencies?
Message-ID: <1811@sdcc6.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 3-Nov-84 15:40:57 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc6.1811
Posted: Sat Nov  3 15:40:57 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 5-Nov-84 20:57:10 EST
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 46
Xref: sdcsvax net.ai:2240 net.nlang:1993

> 
> > I think that there are two issues mixed up at the moment, being
> > 1. Some languages have a single word-construction for an idea
> >    that needs several words in some other language.
> > 2. Some languages *CAN NOT* be used to express certain ideas.
> 
> The distinction between these two categories is not an absolute one. 

There are further problems in the comparison of languages and
their semantic capabilities that become evident in this series
of articles on "deficiencies." 
   1. The discussion of Dutch "gezellig" illustrates the
   difficulty of defining a word (more for some words than
   others) in its OWN language, let alone translating it, i.e.,
   finding a single or compact phrase that conveys its meaning
   to speakers of another language. The problems of definition
   and translation appear to be similar and always approximate.
   One test (of distribution) is whether a proposed synonym or
   defining phrase or circumlocution can be substituted for the
   original word over the whole range of environments in which
   that word can occur. Under this test there are few true 
   synonyms within a language let alone single word translations
   in the target language. In translation the test is doubly
   approximate as the environment in which a term occurs are
   themselves approximate translations, themselves environed by
   the word being tested. I have spoken to Bible translators,now
   so widespread in the world, about how they translate such
   notions as "God" or "hell." They do their best, ignore the
   incommensurabilities, and rely on God or "God" to get his
   point across.

   2. The notion of "word" in my inexpert opinion is one of the
   most loosely defined in linguistics. Sometimes it is taken
   as a unit that can occur by itself (unlike an affix which,
   while it can occur independently, with many different roots,
   is a bound morpheme that would not occur by itself unless 
   it has been liberated, like "isms and ologies.") But much of
   what we take as words in English are, I think, only separated
   as orthographic conventionsh, not occuring separately as 
   utterances in speech-- compare "am" with "-ing". The sense
   of "wordness" may be more semantic than syntactic or perhaps
   more a matter of cognitive chunking. The question of what 
   makes a good dictionary entry may have its counterpart in the
   storage of vocabulary- "word" being in some way the best
   retrieval unit. 
   Ted Schwartz    Anthro/UCSD