<html>
At 08:42 AM 4/11/2001 -0400, James A. Landau wrote:<br>
>In a message dated 4/10/01 6:42:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,<br>
>markklan@PLANETC.COM writes:<br>
><br>
><< "Professor X presented his radical new theory of games
yesterday<br>
> afternoon. Did you attend the workshop?"<br>
><br>
> "Yes. I found his new theory of games intriguing, but I
don't think he did<br>
> a good job of showing how it reconciles with received game
theory."<br>
> *******<br>
><br>
> In the second quote, you could not use the terms "theory
of games"<br>
> and "game theory" interchangeably, because "game
theory" always<br>
> refers to a body of literature (in my experience), but "theory
of games" is<br>
> a more flexible term when appropriately modified. >><br>
><br>
>It is possible to create an example in the other direction, such
as:<br>
><br>
>"When Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (sp?) (then Lew Alcindor) was in high
school, the<br>
>coach of an opposing team decided to use his own game theory: there
is no<br>
>such thing as a one-man basketball team. So he instructed his
players to<br>
>ignore Alcindor and guard the other four opposing players. This
game theory<br>
>worked, with Alcindor's team losing 63-60, Alcindor himself scoring
57<br>
>points."<br>
><br>
>Here "theory of games" cannot be substituted, because the
coach's theory was<br>
>about a specific game (singular). However, one could substitute
"theory of<br>
>how to play a game" or "theory of basketball".<br>
><br>
>In both your and my examples we have a need for a nonce expression
to<br>
>designate some individual's hypothesis, and in each case we made an
ad hoc<br>
>use of an established expression to describe an idea that is not part
of the<br>
>corpus made famous by von Neumann and Morgenstern and known sometimes
as<br>
>"game theory" and sometimes as "theory of
games."<br>
><br>
>Let me contrive another one. I have a list of words that I wish
to check<br>
>against the OED. Every time I find a match between one of the
words and the<br>
>OED, I scribble a note on an index card and, to keep the cards from
getting<br>
>scattered, toss the index card into a cardboard box by my side.
Hence I have<br>
>by my side a box of matches.<br>
><br>
>The point is that I find your example to be not incorrect but not
really<br>
>relevant.<br>
><br>
<font size=4> I am shocked by your conclusion.
All these examples show that Noun1 + Noun2 constructions and Noun2 + of +
Noun1 constructions often have overlapping, non-coextensive meanings.
Thomas Paikeday's original solution to derive Noun1 + Noun2 constructions
from Noun2 + of + Noun1 constructions (at least the way I interpreted it)
is inadequate. The examples are very relevant because variants need not
be derived one from the other.<br>
<br>
<font size=4>Sali.<br>
<br>
</font><br>
<font color="#800000">**********************************************************<br>
Salikoko S.
Mufwene
</font><font color="#800080">s-mufwene@uchicago.edu<br>
</font><font color="#800000">University of
Chicago
</font><font color="#800080">773-702-8531; FAX 773-834-0924<br>
</font><font color="#800000">Department of Linguistics<br>
1010 East 59th Street<br>
Chicago, IL 60637<br>
</font><font color="#000000"><a href="http://humanities.uchicago.edu/humanities/linguistics/faculty/mufwene.html" eudora="autourl">http://humanities.uchicago.edu/humanities/linguistics/faculty/mufwene.html</a><br>
</font><font color="#800000">**********************************************************<br>
</font></html>