Timeline for Word meaning as function of the composition of its phonemes
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
35 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 9, 2022 at 15:03 | comment | added | jlawler | Using all before you've got data from some is a strategic mistake. Here's a a bibliography of phonosemantic research (i.e, the opposite of l'arbitraire du signe), with links. Of particular attention in the context of this question is the recent dissertation and Language article by Bergen. | |
| May 4, 2019 at 3:00 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/StackLinguist/status/1124509136220250112 | ||
| May 3, 2019 at 21:40 | comment | added | Luke Sawczak | See also | |
| May 3, 2019 at 19:10 | answer | added | jick | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 3, 2019 at 15:42 | history | edited | lo tolmencre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 171 characters in body
|
| May 3, 2019 at 14:22 | history | edited | lo tolmencre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 3, 2019 at 5:46 | history | edited | lo tolmencre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
edited body
|
| May 3, 2019 at 5:37 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | @vectory How is the Kleene closure part of W_s? I just needed to construct a domain for g that contained all elements form W_p ans sequences of phonemes rather than atomic elements like the elements of W_p. And P* does so. | |
| May 3, 2019 at 5:01 | comment | added | vectory | I mean can you construct the Kleene star just from phonemes. Of course that's an unexpected question and easy to miss. But that's what it means,since the semantics of the Kleene star are (is?) part of the W_s, and the original claim concerned phonems, not words. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 22:54 | answer | added | Mark Beadles | timeline score: 2 | |
| May 2, 2019 at 22:17 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | @vectory A little ad-hoc I have to ask, can you construct the closure from just phonemes? That is what I intended... or I am not understanding you correctly again. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 22:15 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | @vectory That's not as problematic as the set of all meanings or of all semantics. In essence you are saying that one can describe everything with words. Ah, no, you misunderstood me there. Sorry if I was not clear. W_s is just the set of meanings (however encoded) of existing words in a given language. One concrete instance would be a word embedding, which is a mapping from words (as strings) to vectors (as the words' meaning). | |
| May 2, 2019 at 22:08 | history | became hot network question | |||
| May 2, 2019 at 22:06 | comment | added | vectory | Oh OK, your update explains it. Underwhelmingly, P* is the set of all texts. You cannot construct that, but you can easily describe an algorithm that does. That's not as problematic as the set of all meanings or of all semantics. In essence you are saying that one can describe everything with words, built from nothing but phonemes. Sorry from nothing and phonemes (the empty string, the initial element). Sure that sounds nice. Has someone shown that you can't? Would that be a prove of the weaker statement? A little ad-hoc I have to ask, can you construct the closure from just phonemes? | |
| May 2, 2019 at 21:21 | history | edited | lo tolmencre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 17 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2019 at 21:18 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | @vectory what do you mean by flat sets? I can't find that term when searching for it. And with transitive reflexive closure I was referring to the Keleene Closure. | |
| S May 2, 2019 at 21:17 | history | mod moved comments to chat | |||
| S May 2, 2019 at 21:17 | comment | added | Natalie Clarius | Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 21:14 | comment | added | vectory | First of all I was trying to ask what the transitive, reflexive closure of a flat set is. Wikipedia tells me it is usually derived from relations (which are also sets if you will, but not flat ones). | |
| May 2, 2019 at 21:09 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | @lemontree wikiwand.com/en/Kleene_star | |
| May 2, 2019 at 21:07 | comment | added | Natalie Clarius | The set of phonetic strings is not a binary relation either. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 21:06 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | @lemontree Okay, think of phonemes as their string representations. Then the closure is the closure over the set of phoneme symbols. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 21:06 | comment | added | Natalie Clarius | You may cast your vote for LaTeX formatting here: linguistics.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/509/… | |
| May 2, 2019 at 21:03 | comment | added | Natalie Clarius | Transitivity and reflexivity are are properties of relations. A phoneme is not a relation. Uness you somehow redefine the linguistic concept of a phoneme or the mathematical concept of a relation, which you didn't, your "transitive and reflexive closure over the set of phonemes" is just pseudo-formal jabber that can't even possibly exist. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 20:52 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | I don't understand what you are saying, sorry. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 20:48 | comment | added | vectory | You are essentially still trying to understand what they said, who said it and in what context (otherwise give a dog a bone). There's no need to reject the claim as you seem to out of fear that it contradicts your intuition, if you don't know what the claim is. | |
| May 2, 2019 at 20:40 | comment | added | lo tolmencre | Can you elaborate? Why do I need to show the closure? And what do you mean by "show"? How is the claim I am attacking not a formal one the way I present it? And what does not work like this? | |
| May 2, 2019 at 20:37 | comment | added | vectory | You would need to show that transitive closure. You are making a formal argument, but the claim that you attack is not a formal one, the way you present it. I'll just claim that your premises is potentially flawed, until proven otherwise. That's just not how it works. [cont] | |
| May 2, 2019 at 19:40 | answer | added | vectory | timeline score: 1 | |
| May 2, 2019 at 19:37 | answer | added | user6726 | timeline score: 5 | |
| May 2, 2019 at 19:26 | answer | added | David Vogt | timeline score: 7 | |
| May 2, 2019 at 18:41 | history | edited | lo tolmencre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 207 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2019 at 18:18 | history | edited | lo tolmencre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 109 characters in body
|
| May 2, 2019 at 17:59 | history | edited | lo tolmencre |
edited tags
|
|
| May 2, 2019 at 17:46 | history | asked | lo tolmencre | CC BY-SA 4.0 |