1

Is there a natural/constructed language which allows us to express hyponyms from hypernyms or hypernyms to hyponyms. For example, pigeon to bird or bird to pigeon, both don't have any relation to them in the morphological sense. So an example bird_1, bird_2, bird_3 ... bird_n, the abstract is bird. bird_1 represents pigeon, bird_2 represents parrot, bird_3 represents owl and so on.

  • Would this be like 'black bear', 'brown bear', 'grizzly bear'? – Jeremy Needle Dec 21 '18 at 0:13
  • Something similar, but a more organised process, which could be generalised beyond a bear obviously, but has a formalisation that can be used to describe it. – fahad aijaz Dec 21 '18 at 9:27
  • So English does it in some situations, then? It might be very redundant to repeat the category name for every single noun on every mention, I think. What about multiple category membership? (E.g., 'John_man', 'John_male', 'John_teacher'…) – Jeremy Needle Dec 21 '18 at 19:17
  • Yes, to reduce redundancy, is there a perhaps morphological transformation, in which we say grizlyB, blackB, brownB. In such a language B would have to have a non-ambiguous meaning of a bear alone. Obviously, this isn't feasible either. It does not matter if such a language can only express about bears only. But assume if it does, it efficiently describes these relations. Then from there on, we can formalise to discuss other animals besides bears. – fahad aijaz Dec 22 '18 at 12:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.