[Corpora-List] What is corpora and what is not?

[Laurence Anthony]

On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Angus Grieve-Smith <grvsmth at panix.com> wrote:

>
>     Yes.  Definitions don't have to be illuminating.  A "pack" is a
> collection of dogs (or cards, or cigarettes, etc.).  Of course there's more
> to the story than that, but the definition doesn't have to tell the story.

Agreed. But, just to clarify why this discussion is important, I'll
make the following point:

The whole reason why definitions are important is so that we can
communicate with others without (or with less) confusion. So, if I say
"I have a dog" and we both have roughly the same definition of "dog",
you can roughly understand what I mean. However, if your definition is
very different from mine, e.g., my "dog" wags its tail and barks,
whereas your "dog" meows and catches birds, then very quickly we have
confusion. We see how serious scientists take definitions, when we
look at the recent discussion on the definition of "planet" in
astronomy. We can also see how important definitions are by the sheer
number of them in research papers. Agreed definitions allow people to
communicate with others about complex concepts.

The fact that this discussion has gone on for so long suggests that
our own community does not have an agreed definition of one of it's
most fundamental terms. As an example, it is clear that some of the
definitions posted here are in direct conflict with those published in
some of the most respectable books and research papers in the field
(for good or for bad).

Some may argue that it is not necessary to have an agreed definition,
but I would claim that this will lead to confusion and perhaps slower
progress. In most sciences, precise definitions are the foundation on
which research is based.

Just my two cents.
Laurence.

_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE from this page: http://mailman.uib.no/options/corpora
Corpora mailing list
Corpora at uib.no
http://mailman.uib.no/listinfo/corpora