<div dir="ltr">Dear Mattis,<br><br>a small correction:<br><br>> Furthermore, it is not that trivial as the google-people suggest: they<br>> use extremely large training corpora for automatic translation which is<br>> based on stochastic (albeit apparently simple) grammars. A human,<br>> however, acquires a language with much LESS training material and a<br>> smaller brain. This questions cannot be solved if we rely on google or<br>> the engineering part of "computer science".<br><br>The biggest announced neural networks seem to have on the order of 1 to 2 hundred billion parameters (weights of connections between neurons). Human brain has ~100 billion neurons and on the order of 100 trillion connections / learnable parameters. Huge NLP endeavours probably match and surpass the amount of input humans receive when acquiring a language, but computationally human brain is not small, it is in another universe.<br><br>With kind regards,<br><div>Dmitry</div><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr">On Sat, 2 Jun 2018 at 14:29, Mattis List <<a href="mailto:mattis.list@lingpy.org">mattis.list@lingpy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Dear Stela,<br>
<br>
very brief, but there's a misunderstanding regarding scientific endeavor<br>
here: google people are engineers, their goal is to get a machine<br>
running that replicates a human talking. What linguists want to do is<br>
scientific endeavor, we do not only want to replicate a machine doing<br>
the same things that we do, but we want to UNDERSTAND what the machine does.<br>
<br>
This issue of machine learning approaches which are all very black-boxy,<br>
has now finally gained some intention among scholars, since it is also<br>
dangerous, if we want to use machines to replace human labor in the<br>
future (look at how badly facebook filters hate-speech). But it is also<br>
fundamentally different as an approach: we NEED to care about<br>
categories, as we want to look inside the box, not simply create a new one.<br>
<br>
Furthermore, it is not that trivial as the google-people suggest: they<br>
use extremely large training corpora for automatic translation which is<br>
based on stochastic (albeit apparently simple) grammars. A human,<br>
however, acquires a language with much LESS training material and a<br>
smaller brain. This questions cannot be solved if we rely on google or<br>
the engineering part of "computer science".<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
Mattis<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On 02.06.2018 11:17, Stela Manova wrote:<br>
> Dear Randy, <br>
> <br>
> What you write simply shows that you do not know enough about numerical<br>
> systems and how a computer works. Yes, there exist different numerical<br>
> systems, btw not only the binary and the decimal one, but there are<br>
> special notations for the different systems, so that mathematicians and<br>
> computers know in which system a number is. Additionally, a computer<br>
> works only in binary code. How exactly those things happen in computer<br>
> science is explained, e.g., here: <a href="http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/hex/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.cplusplus.com/doc/hex/</a>. <br>
> <br>
> Regarding induction / deduction and Jeff Dean’s method, I will not<br>
> philosophize, there is a clear definition of mathematical induction. In<br>
> math, induction is used in recursive situations to establish the basic<br>
> case. That MIT professor explains induction and recursion very<br>
> well: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPSeyjX1-4s&t=0s&list=PLUl4u3cNGP63WbdFxL8giv4yhgdMGaZNA&index=23" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPSeyjX1-4s&t=0s&list=PLUl4u3cNGP63WbdFxL8giv4yhgdMGaZNA&index=23</a>.<br>
> Let us leave readers decide of what type is Jeff Dean’s method.<br>
> <br>
> What linguists cannot understand is the fact that in order to apply<br>
> mathematical logic, one needs elements that are of the same type. If you<br>
> assume that there are different types of words (basic elements of a<br>
> system), you cannot describe that system mathematically, at least not<br>
> without preliminary sortings of the elements, which will make the<br>
> analysis more time-consuming = slower computer program. Therefore, Jeff<br>
> Dean claims that using grammar is less efficient than handling without<br>
> grammar. In sum, the difference between the computer scientist Jeff Dean<br>
> and a linguist: Jeff Dean treats all words as units (elements of the<br>
> same type) while linguists philosophize on bipolar polysemy = Jeff Dean<br>
> solves a problem, linguists create an additional one. <br>
> <br>
> Btw, if linguists listen to computer scientists, there would not be any<br>
> research on complexity in linguistics, either. The above MIT professor<br>
> again, part 1<br>
> at: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9nW0uBqvEo&list=PLUl4u3cNGP63WbdFxL8giv4yhgdMGaZNA&index=36" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9nW0uBqvEo&list=PLUl4u3cNGP63WbdFxL8giv4yhgdMGaZNA&index=36</a>, and<br>
> part 2<br>
> at: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lQXYl_L28w&list=PLUl4u3cNGP63WbdFxL8giv4yhgdMGaZNA&index=37" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lQXYl_L28w&list=PLUl4u3cNGP63WbdFxL8giv4yhgdMGaZNA&index=37</a>. <br>
> <br>
> Best, <br>
> Stela<br>
> <br>
>> On 02.06.2018, at 08:51, Randy J. LaPolla <<a href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com" target="_blank">randy.lapolla@gmail.com</a><br>
>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com" target="_blank">randy.lapolla@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Dear Stella,<br>
>> The mathematical approach you discussed is very much in the<br>
>> Structuralist tradition, and not that much in line with the most<br>
>> cutting edge recent AI research. Almost all linguistics (including<br>
>> Chomsky), plus most computer science, particularly NLP, is based on<br>
>> Structuralist principles (though Interactional Linguistics,<br>
>> Usage-based approaches, and Halliday’s approach are not). What you<br>
>> said, "in mathematics / computer science, in isolation, a sequence of<br>
>> elements always has a single meaning because if it has not, no<br>
>> computation is possible”, and you assume it must be true for language,<br>
>> is very much the sort of thing I was talking about. Even in computer<br>
>> science that is not true, as “10” in a binary system such as machine<br>
>> code has a different “meaning” from “10” in a non-binary situation, so<br>
>> 1 + 1 = 2 is only true in the context of a non-binary code.<br>
>> Mathematics and logic is also tautologies, as Wittgenstein pointed<br>
>> out, so quite different from natural language, where even “War is war”<br>
>> is not a tautology, and that is why there was the whole Oxford School<br>
>> of Ordinary Language Philosophy (Grice, Austin, Searle, etc.), as they<br>
>> saw that natural language is quite different from the mathematical<br>
>> approach being pushed by the logical positivists and analytic<br>
>> philosophers. (Frege and Russel had turned logic into mathematics, and<br>
>> tried to apply it to language—the early Wittgenstein went along with<br>
>> that initially, but later saw how problematic even his own early<br>
>> approach was.)<br>
>><br>
>> I am aware of what has been going on in AI, particularly by Jeff Dean,<br>
>> in the switch from symbolic (deductive/rule-based) AI to inductive<br>
>> approaches, and am quite happy they finally have seen the light in<br>
>> that regard, and that has made a big difference in terms of what the<br>
>> systems can do. That switch, from rule based deductive algorithms, is<br>
>> what Dean means by doing without grammar; what they find using the<br>
>> inductive approach is still grammar (as Peirce said “Induction infers<br>
>> a rule”), and simply based on symbol manipulation, so a long way from<br>
>> modelling actual communication, which is based on meaning, not<br>
>> symbols, and so what they are talking about is not really<br>
>> “understanding". Induction can only take you so far (Peirce’s view was<br>
>> that deduction (which is tautology) and induction do not tell you<br>
>> anything new—although abduction is the “weakest” inference, as he put<br>
>> it, it is the only one that tells you something new; On the difference<br>
>> between the latter two: “. . . the essence of an induction is that it<br>
>> infers from one set of facts another set of similar facts, whereas<br>
>> hypothesis [abduction—rjl] infers from facts of one kind to facts of<br>
>> another.”); the next step is to understand how communication actually<br>
>> works (as it isn’t coding/decoding) and try to see if it is possible<br>
>> to model abductive inference, which is what real communication is<br>
>> based on. I don’t know if that is possible. The problem is they are<br>
>> not working with linguists who understand communication, and so on the<br>
>> one had assume it is about symbol manipulation, and on the other end<br>
>> up often reinventing the wheel. One example is a talk I went to at our<br>
>> Complexity Institute, where the speaker talked about how his algorithm<br>
>> had shown that some words in English, such as “a little bit" occur<br>
>> together more often than others. We linguists of course knew that<br>
>> decades ago, but as this person had not talked to any linguists before<br>
>> starting a linguistic study, he had no clue about what had been done<br>
>> in terms of collocational relationships.<br>
>><br>
>> Yes, the abilities and principles related to meaning creation and<br>
>> linguistic behaviour are general cognitive mechanisms and behavioural<br>
>> principles, not specific to language, and not unique to humans. You<br>
>> say, "Linguists believe that linguistics is a module of its own in the<br>
>> brain and love re-defining things as something specific for the<br>
>> field”, but that statement only applies to an ever-shrinking minority<br>
>> of people doing rationalist philosophy rather than empirical<br>
>> linguistics, and the ones associated with the now discredited symbolic<br>
>> AI. <br>
>><br>
>> All the best,<br>
>> Randy<br>
>> -----<br>
>> *Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA* （羅仁地）<br>
>> Professor of Linguistics and Chinese, School of Humanities <br>
>> Nanyang Technological University<br>
>> HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive | Singapore 637332<br>
>> <a href="http://randylapolla.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://randylapolla.net/</a><br>
>> Most recent book:<br>
>> <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324</a><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> On 1 Jun 2018, at 4:57 PM, Stela Manova <<a href="mailto:stela.manova@univie.ac.at" target="_blank">stela.manova@univie.ac.at</a><br>
>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:stela.manova@univie.ac.at" target="_blank">stela.manova@univie.ac.at</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Dear Randy, <br>
>>><br>
>>> What I wrote does not have anything to do with structuralism but is<br>
>>> based on recent research in language understanding on which we rely<br>
>>> every day. I mean research carried out by Google. Intriguingly,<br>
>>> people who do NLP and LU at Google are not linguists but computer<br>
>>> scientists and the senior fellow of the Google Brain Team, Jeff Dean,<br>
>>> claims that language understanding does not need grammar, see his<br>
>>> slides on Scaling language understanding models<br>
>>> at <a href="https://blog.ycombinator.com/jeff-deans-lecture-for-yc-ai/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://blog.ycombinator.com/jeff-deans-lecture-for-yc-ai/</a>, starts<br>
>>> at 24:54 in the video, as well as the slides on Google Translate -<br>
>>> 27:52 in the video (the slides are below the video), but please watch<br>
>>> the whole video if you have time. This is one of Jeff Dean’s many<br>
>>> talks on Deep Learning, I give this link because I have it in my<br>
>>> computer but you can google the topic and the speaker. So, Google’s<br>
>>> LU does not use grammar but is based on combinations / sequences of<br>
>>> elements and statistics; and ironically, linguists who believe in<br>
>>> grammar and irony (based on your message below) use Google products<br>
>>> every day. The wisdom from the Google sequence-to-sequence model is<br>
>>> that single examples do not count as evidence for the organization of<br>
>>> a system. Reread now our discussion on what is bipolar polysemy and<br>
>>> you will understand, why so many linguistics professors from so many<br>
>>> different countries cannot agree on a definition. <br>
>>><br>
>>> It is not about bipolar polysemy, it is about the future of the<br>
>>> field. Google guys claim and prove that the same learning logic<br>
>>> applies to all areas of life; roughly, the same rules operate<br>
>>> in visual perception, chemistry, language, etc. Linguists believe<br>
>>> that linguistics is a module of its own in the brain and love<br>
>>> re-defining things as something specific for the field - there is<br>
>>> even statistics for linguists which unfortunately differs from Google<br>
>>> statistics because people who do statistics in Google are<br>
>>> mathematicians while (most of the) linguistic statisticians were bad<br>
>>> at math at school and therefore studied languages at the university, etc.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I have a PhD in general linguistics from the University of Vienna<br>
>>> (and my both PhD supervisors were very bad at math) but I cannot<br>
>>> agree that this is sufficient evidence that the tip of my nose is the<br>
>>> end of the horizon. OK, I was also educated in math nine years -<br>
>>> intensively.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Best, <br>
>>><br>
>>> Stela<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>> On 01.06.2018, at 06:06, Randy J. LaPolla <<a href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com" target="_blank">randy.lapolla@gmail.com</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:randy.lapolla@gmail.com" target="_blank">randy.lapolla@gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Hi All,<br>
>>>> This whole discussion shows how problematic some of the a priori,<br>
>>>> non-empirical assumptions of the Structuralist approach are. The<br>
>>>> assumption that there is a fixed association of sign and signifier,<br>
>>>> and so words have meaning in some abstract universe divorced from<br>
>>>> context, and the assumption that language can be dealt with<br>
>>>> mathematically, and the assumption that communication happens<br>
>>>> through coding and decoding (on the computational model), and that<br>
>>>> the “real” word is the written, abstract, out-of-phonetic-context<br>
>>>> form, and so phonology in context can be ignored, and as there is<br>
>>>> only one “real” meaning to a word, the different uses in context ,<br>
>>>> such as irony, can be simply ignored or treated as deviant. The<br>
>>>> assumption that there is a fixed system that has iron-clad rules,<br>
>>>> and that there are aspects of the system that are necessary for<br>
>>>> communication to occur. <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> There is much literature showing how problematic these assumptions<br>
>>>> are, but somehow they are still in force in much of linguistics, as<br>
>>>> reflected in some of this discussion.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> My own view is that communication involves one person performing a<br>
>>>> communicative act in a particular place and time and to a particular<br>
>>>> addressee, and the addressee abductively inferring that person’s<br>
>>>> reason for performing that act in that particular context to that<br>
>>>> particular person at that particular time. So it is completely<br>
>>>> context dependent, as Nick shows, and there is no minimum<br>
>>>> morphosyntactic structure required, as David Gil has shown. No part<br>
>>>> of the communicative situation or act can be left out in terms of<br>
>>>> understanding the meaning that the addressee creates in inferring<br>
>>>> the communicator’s intention (as Mark shows in including gesture in<br>
>>>> his discussion, though it also includes non-conventionalised<br>
>>>> behaviour, e.g. gaze and body movements; and it is creation of<br>
>>>> meaning, not transfer of meaning, and so subjective and<br>
>>>> non-determinative). Language and other conventionalised<br>
>>>> communicative behaviour (language is behaviour, not a thing, and<br>
>>>> does not differ in nature from other conventionalised behaviour)<br>
>>>> emerges out of the interaction of the people involved.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> So the question asked is like a Zen koan: you can’t answer it yes or<br>
>>>> no, as it is based on problematic assumptions.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Randy<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> -----<br>
>>>> *Randy J. LaPolla, PhD FAHA* （羅仁地）<br>
>>>> Professor of Linguistics and Chinese, School of Humanities <br>
>>>> Nanyang Technological University<br>
>>>> HSS-03-45, 14 Nanyang Drive | Singapore 637332<br>
>>>> <a href="http://randylapolla.net/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://randylapolla.net/</a><br>
>>>> Most recent book:<br>
>>>> <a href="https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.routledge.com/The-Sino-Tibetan-Languages-2nd-Edition/LaPolla-Thurgood/p/book/9781138783324</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>> On 1 Jun 2018, at 7:42 AM, Nick Enfield <<a href="mailto:nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au" target="_blank">nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au" target="_blank">nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> In Lao:<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1. The verb cak2 means ‘know’, and can be negated as in man2 bòò1<br>
>>>>> cak2 [3sg neg know] ‘S/he doesn’t know.’ But when used alone,<br>
>>>>> with no subject expressed, often with the perfect marker (as in<br>
>>>>> cak2 or cak2 lèèw4) it means “I don’t know.”<br>
>>>>> 2. The verb faaw4 means ‘to hurry, rush’, and can be negated as in<br>
>>>>> man2 bòò1 faaw4 [3sg neg rush] ‘S/he doesn’t hurry/isn’t<br>
>>>>> hurrying.’ But when used alone as an imperative, with no<br>
>>>>> subject expressed, often repeated, or with an appropriate<br>
>>>>> sentence-final particle (as in faaw4 faaw4 or faaw4 dee4) it<br>
>>>>> means “Don’t hurry, Stop hurrying, Slow down”.<br>
>>>>> 3. Often, both positive and negative readings of verbs are<br>
>>>>> available when the irrealis prefix si is used (with context or<br>
>>>>> perhaps intonation doing the work); eg khaw3 si kin3 [3pl irr<br>
>>>>> eat] could mean ‘They will eat it’ or ‘They will definitely not<br>
>>>>> eat it’ with a meaning similar to the colloquial English<br>
>>>>> expression “As if they would eat it.” The second meaning is<br>
>>>>> made more likely by insertion of the directional paj3 ‘go’<br>
>>>>> before the verb (khaw3 si paj3 kin3 [3pl irr go eat] ‘As if<br>
>>>>> they would eat it.’).<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Nick<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> * *<br>
>>>>> * *<br>
>>>>> * *<br>
>>>>> * *<br>
>>>>> *N. J. ENFIELD *| FAHA FRSN | Professor of Linguistics<br>
>>>>> Head, Post Truth Initiative <a href="https://posttruthinitiative.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://posttruthinitiative.org/</a><br>
>>>>> Director, SSSHARC (Sydney Social Sciences and Humanities Advanced<br>
>>>>> Research Centre)<br>
>>>>> Faculty of Arts and Social Sciences<br>
>>>>> *THE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY*<br>
>>>>> Rm N364, John Woolley Building A20 | NSW | 2006 | AUSTRALIA<br>
>>>>> T +61 2 9351 2391 | M +61 476 239 669<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3891-6973" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">orcid.org/0000-0003-3891-6973</a> <<a href="http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3891-6973" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3891-6973</a>> <br>
>>>>> E <a href="mailto:nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au" target="_blank">nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au" target="_blank">nick.enfield@sydney.edu.au</a>> | W <a href="http://sydney.edu.au" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">sydney.edu.au</a><br>
>>>>> <<a href="http://sydney.edu.au/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://sydney.edu.au/</a>> <a href="http://nickenfield.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">nickenfield.org</a> <<a href="http://www.nickenfield.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.nickenfield.org/</a>><br>
>>>>> * *<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> *From: *Lingtyp <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>>> on behalf of<br>
>>>>> Mark Donohue <mark@donohue.cc <mailto:<a href="mailto:mark@donohue.cc" target="_blank">mark@donohue.cc</a>>><br>
>>>>> *Date: *Friday, 1 June 2018 at 7:13 AM<br>
>>>>> *To: *David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>><br>
>>>>> *Cc: *"<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" target="_blank">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG" target="_blank">LINGTYP@LISTSERV.LINGUISTLIST.ORG</a>>"<br>
>>>>> <<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>>><br>
>>>>> *Subject: *Re: [Lingtyp] Does bipolar polysemy exist?<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> In Tukang Besi, an Austronesian language of Indonesia, the verb<br>
>>>>> 'know' is dahani; verbs are generally prefixed to agree with the<br>
>>>>> S,A argument, thus<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> ku-dahani 'I know'<br>
>>>>> 'u-dahani 'you know'<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> etc.<br>
>>>>> In some contexts (imperatives, emphatic generic (TAME-less)<br>
>>>>> assertion), the prefix can be omitted.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> dahani 'I/you certainly know'<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Now, I've heard this (and only this) verb used, in the absence of<br>
>>>>> any inflection, with exactly its opposite meaning<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> Dahani 'I don't know'<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> in what might be a sarcastic sense. Unlike the antonymic uses of<br>
>>>>> many adjectives in many languages, including English, this use of<br>
>>>>> dahani is actually a simple (though emphatic) negation of the<br>
>>>>> verb's 'normal' meaning.<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> -Mark<br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> On 1 June 2018 at 04:43, David Gil <<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>> Yes, as Matti points out, negative lexicalization is not quite as<br>
>>>>>> rare as I was implying. Yet at the same time, I suspect that it<br>
>>>>>> might not be as common as Matti is suggesting. Looking at the<br>
>>>>>> examples that he cites in his Handbook chapter, I suspect that in<br>
>>>>>> some cases, the negative counterpart isn't "just" negative, but is<br>
>>>>>> also associated with some additional meaning components.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Matti doesn't list "good"/"bad" as being such a pair, though,<br>
>>>>>> citing work by Ulrike Zeshan on sign languages, he does mention<br>
>>>>>> other evaluative concepts such as "not right", "not possible",<br>
>>>>>> "not enough". in English, at least, "bad" is not the negation of<br>
>>>>>> "good", it is the antonym of "good"; there's all kind of stuff in<br>
>>>>>> the world which we attach no evaluative content to, and which<br>
>>>>>> hence is neither good nor bad. (It's true that in English, in many<br>
>>>>>> contexts, the expression "not good" is understood as meaning<br>
>>>>>> "bad", which is interesting in and of itself, but still, it is not<br>
>>>>>> necessarily understood in this way.) While I have no direct<br>
>>>>>> evidence, I would strongly suspect that in languages that have<br>
>>>>>> lexicalized expressions for "not right", "not possible", and "not<br>
>>>>>> enough", the meanings of these expressions will be the antonyms of<br>
>>>>>> "right", "possible" and "enough", and not their negations.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Under lexicalized negatives in the domain of tense/aspect, Matti<br>
>>>>>> lists "will not", "did not", "not finished". Well the one case<br>
>>>>>> that I am familiar with that falls into this category is that of<br>
>>>>>> the Malay/Indonesian iamative/perfect marker "sudah", which has a<br>
>>>>>> lexicalized negative counterpart "belum". However, "belum" isn't<br>
>>>>>> just "not sudah"; it also bears a strong (if not invariant)<br>
>>>>>> implicature that at some point in the future, the state or<br>
>>>>>> activity that is not complete will be completed — in fact, just<br>
>>>>>> like the English expression "not yet". (When people in Indonesia<br>
>>>>>> ask you if you're married, it's considered impolite to answer with<br>
>>>>>> a simple negation "tidak"; you're supposed to say "belum"<br>
>>>>>> precisely because of its implicature that you will, in the future,<br>
>>>>>> get married. By avoiding this implicature, the simple negation<br>
>>>>>> "tidak" is viewed as a threat to the natural order of things, in<br>
>>>>>> which everybody should get married.)<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> I suspect that many if not all of the cases characterized by Matti<br>
>>>>>> as "lexicalized negatives" will turn out to be associated with<br>
>>>>>> some additional meaning component beyond that of "mere" negation.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On 31/05/2018 20:06, Miestamo, Matti M P wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Dear David, Zygmunt and others,<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> negative lexicalization is not quite as rare as David seems to<br>
>>>>>>> imply. There is a cross-linguistic survey of this phenomenon by<br>
>>>>>>> Ljuba Veselinova (ongoing work, detailed and informative<br>
>>>>>>> presentation slides available through her website), and Zeshan<br>
>>>>>>> (2013) has written on this phenomenon in sign languages. There's<br>
>>>>>>> also a short summary in my recent Cambridge Handbook of<br>
>>>>>>> Linguistic Typology chapter on negation (preprint available via<br>
>>>>>>> the link in the signature below).<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Best,<br>
>>>>>>> Matti<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>> Matti Miestamo<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~matmies/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.ling.helsinki.fi/~matmies/</a><br>
>>>>>>> <<a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/O7N4CL7rK8t5zx0kUBCq-Q?domain=ling.helsinki.fi" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/O7N4CL7rK8t5zx0kUBCq-Q?domain=ling.helsinki.fi</a>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Zygmunt Frajzyngier <<a href="mailto:Zygmunt.Frajzyngier@COLORADO.EDU" target="_blank">Zygmunt.Frajzyngier@COLORADO.EDU</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Zygmunt.Frajzyngier@COLORADO.EDU" target="_blank">Zygmunt.Frajzyngier@COLORADO.EDU</a>>> kirjoitti 31.5.2018<br>
>>>>>>>> kello 17.23:<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> David, Friends<br>
>>>>>>>> Related to David’s post, not to the original query.<br>
>>>>>>>> In any individual language, there may exist a few of ‘Not-X’ items.<br>
>>>>>>>> In Mina (Central Chadic) there is a noun which designates<br>
>>>>>>>> ‘non-blacksmith’.<br>
>>>>>>>> In several Chadic languages there exist negative existential<br>
>>>>>>>> verb unrelated to the affirmative existential verb.<br>
>>>>>>>> Zygmunt<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> On 5/31/18, 5:52 AM, "Lingtyp on behalf of David Gil"<br>
>>>>>>>> <<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">lingtyp-bounces@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>> on behalf<br>
>>>>>>>> of <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> On 31/05/2018 13:37, Sebastian Nordhoff wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>> On 05/31/2018 01:18 PM, David Gil wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>> A point of logic. "Not X" and "Antonym (X)" are distinct<br>
>>>>>>>>>> notions, and<br>
>>>>>>>>>> the original query by Ian Joo pertains to the former, not the<br>
>>>>>>>>>> latter.<br>
>>>>>>>>> but is there any (monomorphemic) lexeme which expresses not-X<br>
>>>>>>>>> which is<br>
>>>>>>>>> not the antonym of X?<br>
>>>>>>>> But how many (monomorphemic) lexemes expressing not-X are<br>
>>>>>>>> there at all?<br>
>>>>>>>> The only ones I can think of are suppletive negative<br>
>>>>>>>> existentials, e.g.<br>
>>>>>>>> Tagalog "may" (exist) > "wala" (not exist). Even suppletive<br>
>>>>>>>> negative<br>
>>>>>>>> desideratives don't quite fit the bill, e.g. Tagalog<br>
>>>>>>>> "nais"/"gusto"<br>
>>>>>>>> (want) > "ayaw", which is commonly glossed as "not want",<br>
>>>>>>>> but actually<br>
>>>>>>>> means "want not-X", rather than "not want-X" — "ayaw" is<br>
>>>>>>>> thus an antonym<br>
>>>>>>>> but not a strict negation of "nais"/"gusto".<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> What is not clear to me about the original query is whether<br>
>>>>>>>> it is asking<br>
>>>>>>>> for negations or for antonyms.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>> David Gil<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
>>>>>>>> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
>>>>>>>> Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>><br>
>>>>>>>> Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<br>
>>>>>>>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <<a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <<a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>>>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>>>>> <<a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>>> David Gil<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Department of Linguistic and Cultural Evolution<br>
>>>>>> Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History<br>
>>>>>> Kahlaische Strasse 10, 07745 Jena, Germany<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Email: <a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:gil@shh.mpg.de" target="_blank">gil@shh.mpg.de</a>><br>
>>>>>> Office Phone (Germany): +49-3641686834<br>
>>>>>> Mobile Phone (Indonesia): +62-81281162816<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>>>> <<a href="https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://protect-au.mimecast.com/s/VBmHCMwvLQTGnKp2ikHGCw?domain=listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
>>>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a>><br>
>>>> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> Lingtyp mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
> <br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Lingtyp mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org" target="_blank">Lingtyp@listserv.linguistlist.org</a><br>
<a href="http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/lingtyp</a><br>
</blockquote></div>