Semantic categorisation of gismu

[la gleki]

I noticed that zort had imported semantic list from jwodder web site.

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/Semantic+categorization+of+gismu

I should say that one year ago i started a similar project starting from the same list.

However, the list has diverted too far from the original. 

In my list every gismu can belong to several semantic classes at the same time.

Here it is

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahngu1CNj7wddDZBRzgwMm1EWlpKUEJRcTQtUGNCMFE#gid=28

I will finish it myself (around 100 gismu are left) but don't expect me to be active here.

Everyone is free to use my work in their own projects. Copy it, modify it in your projects.

Any suggestions are welcome.

Of course, semantic lists cannot be perfect. So this list doesn't remove the need in continuing zort's work.

[Sebastian]

Not that I want to post another wish list, but an ability to attach "cathegory tags" to valsi, directly in jbovlaste would be really, really great!

So you can then use such tags to group valsi into different semantic classes for possible export to different projects such as Flashcard, learning material etc. With the possibility to admit different, parallel  systems of classification.

I'm not a programmer so maybe this is too much to ask for? And then perhaps the list gleki mentioned here might be useful after all?

Skickat från min iPhone

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/Jh9kUhr24hkJ.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[ianek]

If there'll ever be jbovlaste 2.0, then adding tags wouldn't add much work (in my opinion as a programmer).

mu'o mi'e ianek

[ianek]

Also, I really like the idea. I'd do it myself, if I hadn't much other work to do and my own unfinished projects.

mu'o mi'e ianek

[la gleki]

On Sunday, January 20, 2013 2:57:51 PM UTC+4, ianek wrote:

Also, I really like the idea. I'd do it myself, if I hadn't much other work to do and my own unfinished projects.

Notice that words "I'd do it myself, if I hadn't "  ?

That's what a language without an official solution on subjunctives results in. zo'o

ta'onai I don't think there can be a perfect solution on those tags. Whose system of categorisation is the best?

Mine? Or zort's? Notice that we even started from the same point.

However I think that creating a hypergraph (3d mind map) using hyperlinks to other gismu in notes field of every gismu would be nice.

[la arxokuna]

I finished the list

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AsmQGeBZ0e7BdG5xLXlBTl82YkxNQTVFWjFSX0I4UUE#gid=3

(fewer columns https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Ahngu1CNj7wddDZBRzgwMm1EWlpKUEJRcTQtUGNCMFE#gid=28)

It will be further improved.

Of course it'll never become perfect.

Everyone is free to fork this project.

mu'o

[tijlan]

ki'e la gleki

I would be interested to see how different brivla are interrelated in terms of their thematic relations. For example:

porpi
spisa

daspo

{porpi} and {spisa} have the same arguments (the whole and the part) in reverse. They are also a dynamic/static counterpart to each other: something dynamically *becomes* pieces, and something statically *is* a piece. With {daspo}, an agent comes into the picture, causing something to become other than its original self (to lose its original state), but without specifying that resultant entity (whether spisa1, spofu1, or something else).

Many brivla don't have a static/dynamic counterpart. {morsi} is static (something is dead) rather than dynamic (something dies).

I like the notation used in the monograph below:
http://rickm.net16.net/lexical_semantics.html

It may be useful in the semantic analysis of brivla:

porpi   P/F-d

spisa   F/P-s

daspo   A/P-d

morsi   P-s

mrobi'o   P-d

catra   A/P/F-d

viska   P/F-s

catlu   AP/F-s

Both viska1 and catlu1 are a patient to the x2, but catlu1 is also an agent to itself, keeping itself in the state of seeing something (it's an agent-patient). (And, insofar as a "condition" place is optional for {catlu}, viska3 may be considered equally extraneous and be left out of the notation.)

According to your list, {viska} and {tirna} belong to the same "Psycho: Sensation/observation" class, as they should, but {tirna} doesn't have an AP/F-s counterpart like {viska} does. This kind of analysis can cue us to find lexical partiality and redundancy.

mu'o

[la arxokuna]

On Sunday, June 2, 2013 2:34:12 PM UTC+4, tijlan wrote:

ki'e la gleki

I would be interested to see how different brivla are interrelated in terms of their thematic relations. For example:

porpi
spisa

daspo

{porpi} and {spisa} have the same arguments (the whole and the part) in reverse. They are also a dynamic/static counterpart to each other: something dynamically *becomes* pieces, and something statically *is* a piece. With {daspo}, an agent comes into the picture, causing something to become other than its original self (to lose its original state), but without specifying that resultant entity (whether spisa1, spofu1, or something else).

Many brivla don't have a static/dynamic counterpart. {morsi} is static (something is dead) rather than dynamic (something dies).

I like the notation used in the monograph below:
http://rickm.net16.net/lexical_semantics.html

mutce se cinri cukta i ckire do tu'a le judrysni

 

It may be useful in the semantic analysis of brivla:

porpi   P/F-d

spisa   F/P-s

daspo   A/P-d

morsi   P-s

mrobi'o   P-d

catra   A/P/F-d

viska   P/F-s

catlu   AP/F-s

Both viska1 and catlu1 are a patient to the x2, but catlu1 is also an agent to itself, keeping itself in the state of seeing something (it's an agent-patient). (And, insofar as a "condition" place is optional for {catlu}, viska3 may be considered equally extraneous and be left out of the notation.)

According to your list, {viska} and {tirna} belong to the same "Psycho: Sensation/observation" class, as they should, but {tirna} doesn't have an AP/F-s counterpart like {viska} does. This kind of analysis can cue us to find lexical partiality and redundancy.

I hope by the term "us" you mean not only lojbanists cuz analysing semantics of even gimste is a work that can't be solved by our rather small group of nolcertu.

 

mu'o

[Ian Johnson]

.i mi na te pinka .i sa'u mi se plixau gi'e se cinri gi'e ckire

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.