WikiDiscuss

WikiDiscuss


Wiki page BPFK Section: Epistemology sumt...

posts: 2388

It is a little hard to answer these questions
since what is asked for it examples of usages
that have not yet occurred. The point is that a
number of expressions have been assigned to
usages that seem pretty likely not to occur
(witness both the uncertaintly of what they mean
exactly and the implausibility of the examples
that are fadged up) and thus are cut off from
being used should something come along that could
have used the expression. I don't generally know
what that something might be, only that it might
be ans that it is unlikely to be what has already
been assigned.


> On 5/16/05, John E Clifford
> <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> > As a result, a number of
> > potentially useful expressions have been
> > preempted for usages that are unlikely ever
> to go
> > beyond the fabricated examples, while
> relations
> > which they might have accomodated may go
> without
> > Zipfy expressions.
>
> For example?
>
> > It would seem that a more honest and
> > ultimately useful approach would be to deal
> with
> > the existing usages (clarifying them perhaps,
> but
> > not forcing them into the molds devised for
> the
> > unused forms) and then acknowledge the
> > possibilities for further forms, with some
> > indication of the factors that might play a
> riole
> > in their uses (though just how would be left
> > open ).
>
> Which usages do you think have been ignored?

Wrong question. It is not that usages have been
ignored, but that non-usages have been considered
and sealed in place.

> >From what I can see, people working on this
> have
> made every effort to find examples from actual
> usage.
> Many BAIs don't have any recorded usage, and
> for many it is hard to come up with any
> sensible
> use for them.

My point would be that BAI that don't have usage
are not BAI at all but only potentially BAI.
They have no place in a dictionary, or, at most,
should be mentioned as potential forms with some
indication of where there usage might be expected
to lie — but obviously not exact specification
because we do not yet know what that is (if ever
anything). That is, the way to build a
dictionary — at this point in the language — is
to find and explain the forms actually used, not
to create and explain every possible form (an
impossible task anyhow, so why even mess with a
half-assed job).
Notice that, had the present program been carried
out from the beginning, a large number of the
established forms would not have the meaning they
do and a number of useful (and used) notions
would lack forms of the simple BAI type. I would
expect this pattern to continue when the program
is put in place starting after the beginning.