Posted by Kazper at 1:06pm Aug 6 '08If the entire defintion of a word was "table that one use for picnic" then any table that one use for picnic could correctly have that word used in reference to it. If one wants to have a word for a certain type of table with a particular shape or set of shapes that's primary function is to be used for picnics then one has to express all that...
One is using a compound word instead of an arbitrary word to lessen the burden on memory but there could be more in the definition of that compound word than just the phrase which constitutes it... So, I think, by using a phrase (that may be one of few) as a compound word instead of just as a seperated phrase... you're getting across... that there may be more meaning then just the meaning conveyed by the phrase. The phrase: "table that one use for picnic" in compound word form is letting one know that it may just be one phrase of many and that the actual whole meaning is more.
A compound word reveals only part of the meaning of the word (though it's possible that at times it may be revealing all of the meaning of the word) as a method to lessen memory load. You don't want to use a seperated phrase because you might not get across that the meaning that it conveys is only part of a whole meaning that you're trying to convey. It's like... take an arbitrary word with two phrases as it's definition... you wouldn't use either of those phrases alone to get across the whole meaning, you'd use both but since you have a word you'd use the word...
A seperated phrase functioning as a compound word works... because it's understood to be functioning as a compound word.
So, since a compound word can often (if not always) be pulled apart to exist as a seperated phrase (meaning that it is graphically contrasted from a seperated phrase but not phonetically) it must be phonetically contrasted from a seperated phrase. For that reason I came up with the idea of compound word openers and closers. The reason for two sets of compound word enclosers, one set that conveys that the compound word refers to an individual thing and the other set that conveys that the compound word refers to a general thing, is because one could use the same phrase to constitute a compound word to refer to one just as easily as the other (though I could just differentiate within the revealed phrase and have only one set of compound word enclosers...).
I think that instead of the event: "x1 eat x2" being in rain it may actually be x1 that's in rain. So: "x1 eat x2 and x1 in rain." Though I think I can still make the event... conception work. That the event conception is pretty much the same thing... Alot of times it truly is, for example: "x1 eat x2 dw cause g x1 desire c" The reason to try and make the event conception work even though it may not truly, truly be what's happening is that... if I conceive of it the other way I start thinking I should indicate it somehow. Even if the indicating method is ellipsed I think it's going to be a pain. Sometimes too it may actually be the verb or preposition. For example: "x1 run duration equal minute 10 c" It's definitely not x1 that possess duration but it definitely could be the event which is how I understand it now.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
One is using a compound word instead of an arbitrary word to lessen the burden on memory but there could be more in the definition of that compound word than just the phrase which constitutes it... So, I think, by using a phrase (that may be one of few) as a compound word instead of just as a seperated phrase... you're getting across... that there may be more meaning then just the meaning conveyed by the phrase. The phrase: "table that one use for picnic" in compound word form is letting one know that it may just be one phrase of many and that the actual whole meaning is more.
A compound word reveals only part of the meaning of the word (though it's possible that at times it may be revealing all of the meaning of the word) as a method to lessen memory load. You don't want to use a seperated phrase because you might not get across that the meaning that it conveys is only part of a whole meaning that you're trying to convey. It's like... take an arbitrary word with two phrases as it's definition... you wouldn't use either of those phrases alone to get across the whole meaning, you'd use both but since you have a word you'd use the word...
A seperated phrase functioning as a compound word works... because it's understood to be functioning as a compound word.
So, since a compound word can often (if not always) be pulled apart to exist as a seperated phrase (meaning that it is graphically contrasted from a seperated phrase but not phonetically) it must be phonetically contrasted from a seperated phrase. For that reason I came up with the idea of compound word openers and closers. The reason for two sets of compound word enclosers, one set that conveys that the compound word refers to an individual thing and the other set that conveys that the compound word refers to a general thing, is because one could use the same phrase to constitute a compound word to refer to one just as easily as the other (though I could just differentiate within the revealed phrase and have only one set of compound word enclosers...).
I think that instead of the event: "x1 eat x2" being in rain it may actually be x1 that's in rain. So: "x1 eat x2 and x1 in rain." Though I think I can still make the event... conception work. That the event conception is pretty much the same thing... Alot of times it truly is, for example: "x1 eat x2 dw cause g x1 desire c" The reason to try and make the event conception work even though it may not truly, truly be what's happening is that... if I conceive of it the other way I start thinking I should indicate it somehow. Even if the indicating method is ellipsed I think it's going to be a pain. Sometimes too it may actually be the verb or preposition. For example: "x1 run duration equal minute 10 c" It's definitely not x1 that possess duration but it definitely could be the event which is how I understand it now.
~Shawn Savoie~
~Ottawa, Ontario, Canada~
Re: Ruminations. - Kazper