[Lexicog] palm trees

Tue May 19 23:39:41 UTC 2009

Taanshi, Ron,

Although I do not think I am the one to necessarily do this, I think it
would be fascinating to see how these emic categories would play out in our
language Michif.  I wonder if we would see French-origin categories, Cree
origin categories, a mix of the two or even some that do not exist except in
Michif!  I wonder how the categories would play out when compared to Michif
French and Ile a la Crosse Michif (a unique Metis dialect of Cree with some
French borrowings....  It would be neat to identify both the similarities
and differences in the ethnosemantics....

Eekoshi pitamaa.
Heather

On Tue, May 19, 2009 at 4:20 PM, Ronald Moe <ron_moe at sil.org> wrote:

>
>
>  I suspected, but didn’t know, that Austronesian languages considered them
> as two different things. (We lived in a coconut grove while studying
> Maguindanaon, an Austronesian language.) The Austronesian languages would be
> particularly interested in these things due to where they live (tropical
> Pacific islands). What is really interesting to me is the reason you
> give—how people interact with them. Our “scientific” classification of
> living things is based on form (e.g. A ‘tree’ has a large woody trunk?). But
> Ken McElhanon suggested to me that our perception of the physical world is
> determined primarily with how we interact with it. So the question “Can we
> use it for wood?” is diagnostic on the basis of our interaction. “I walked
> into the **woods** to collect **firewood** and I cut down a tree so I
> would have some **wood** to build some **wood** furniture.” These
> words/senses are connected morphologically as well as semantically. I
> believe other languages use the same word for ‘tree’ and ‘wood/lumber’. This
> is the kind of ethnosemantics that I want to research. What is the
> underlying reason for grouping words into a domain? Similarly, what is the
> underlying reason why words develop secondary meanings? I believe the two
> questions are intimately related—that lexical relations, derivation,
> secondary senses are all somewhat dependent on the kinds of semantic links
> the mind typically forms between concepts. If we could get a better handle
> on the basic building blocks of semantics and how they are joined together,
> we could do a lot better job building really sophisticated dictionaries. We
> could also do lexicography much more efficiently and with better insight.
>
>
>
> Ron Moe
>
>
>  ------------------------------
>
> *From:* lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com [mailto:
> lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Lou Hohulin
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 19, 2009 1:14 PM
> *To:* lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [Lexicog] palm trees
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  You may know this, Ron, having worked on an Austronesian language. In the
> two languages that I know, palms are not trees. The reason given by native
> speakers is that palms cannot be used as wood, i.e. firewood, or lumber. The
> word referring to trees may also refer to lumber.
>
> On Tue, 19 May 2009 12:12:26 -0700
> "Ronald Moe" <ron_moe at sil.org <ron_moe%40sil.org>> wrote:
> >This fall I'm going to Uganda for three and a half months to attempt(!) to
> >elicit the emic (emic = the way speakers view things) classification
> system
> >of the Ik language. It is remote and for various reasons there has not
> been
> >a lot of education in the area. So I am hoping it will be minimally
> >influenced by outside classification systems. One purpose of this research
> >is to see where the DDP domains do not fit another language. Eventually I
> >hope to get enough data to start making judgments on which domains are
> >universal (if any) and how languages vary. My thesis depends on the
> >assumption that there are semantic universals and universals of human
> >experience that influence how various languages conceptualize reality and
> >experience.
> >
> >
> >
> >For instance research into color terms reveals a wide variety of lexemes.
> >But when people are asked to point to a prototypical 'red' or 'blue', they
> >frequently point to the same square on a color chart. English has its
> >prototypical 'blood red' 'sky blue' and 'leaf green'. This holds true from
> >individual to individual and from language to language. If a language has
> >one lexeme that includes 'blue' and 'green' (what the researchers label
> >'grue'), people will point to two prototypical squares on the color chart,
> >one the prototypical blue and the other the prototypical green. Research
> >into the physics of the eye shows that this is actually determined by the
> >wavelengths of the light that the cones and rods in the eye can detect. So
> >there is a physiological basis for these lexical universals.
> >
> >
> >
> >One implication of this is that a standardized list of domains will be
> >partly applicable to any language. This is why DDP works well but not
> >perfectly. DDP is somewhat standardized, but in reality is basically an
> >English list. What we need is a truly standardized list and an indication
> of
> >where languages vary. I liken the need to the role of IPA in phonological
> >study of particular languages. IPA gets us started, but we then have to do
> >research and analysis to determine how the phonology of our language
> works.
> >
> >
> >
> >Once I've done my research in the Ik language, I will want to describe the
> >process and results. I'm then hoping other people will do the same sort of
> >research so that we can compare numerous emic classification systems.
> >
> >
> >
> >Ron Moe
> >
> >
> >
> > _____
> >
> >From: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com<lexicographylist%40yahoogroups.com>
> >[mailto:lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com<lexicographylist%40yahoogroups.com>]
> On Behalf Of Wayne Leman
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 9:10 AM
> >To: lexicographylist at yahoogroups.com <lexicographylist%40yahoogroups.com>
> >Subject: [Lexicog] palm trees
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Greg, if you are attempting to reflect the lexicon of a language, what is
> >the purpose of using a semantic taxonomy that does not reflect the lexical
> >relationships of that language?
> >
> >It seems to me that using an "external" taxonomy to aid English readers
> >creates a distorted view of the lexical relations within the language,
> which
> >includes taxonomic relationships.
> >
> >By the way, it is not necessary to have superordinate category
> >classification words in order for a people to have the concept of a
> semantic
> >grouping, although it definitely helps. Not every concept that people have
> >is lexicalized, including in English.
> >
> >Wayne
> >-----
> >Ninilchik Russian dictionary online:
> >http://ninilchik. <http://ninilchik.noadsfree.com> noadsfree.com
> >
> >--------
> >
> >Hi Ron,
> >
> >I was not thinking of using a vernacular classification because the
> >vernacular I am studying actually seems to have few classification words
> of
> >levels that I can find. Also, I want my semantic domain list to reflect a
> >likely folk classification of English readers because it will mostly be
> >English readers who access the (English) sematic domain list. I know you
> do
> >not want an English folk classification. Sorry.
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >Regards, Greg
> >
> >
> >
> >No virus found in this incoming message.
> >Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> >Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.34/2122 - Release Date: 05/19/09
> >06:21:00
> >
> >
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.34/2122 - Release Date: 05/19/09
> 06:21:00
>  
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/lexicography/attachments/20090519/fa15cf83/attachment.htm>