#semantic

[drlinguo]

morphosyntactic plural ≠ semantic plural

(Source: Wang 2023)

[starlightdotpink]

States \\ ∆ \\ Unity

I'm a quantum [ telescope, microscope, human ] Finding [ distant, small, hidden ] stuff. Just a little bit of [ newness, blueness, trueness ] that everyone forgot to love.

You're [ alien, mysterious, sacred ], And sometimes, a little naked, And the people [ fear, need, forget ] what they can't [ name, hold, see ].

But every [ part, fragment, light ] of [ you, them, us, we ] Reflecting in [ the mirror, your eyes, the deepest sea ] Is the light that broke the night and led [ us, you ] right to [ them, you, me ].

[haxyr3]

This tiny animal, the tardigrade, is called тихоходка in Russian.

Тихо- in their name doesn't mean "quietly", it means slowly. Probably they do move very quietly, but their name literally means "slowmover".

[dramawatching]

Sangwoo googling “hormone issues” and “tingly feelings”… babe lmao you are just h0rny for a very hot man it’s okay it happens to the best of us

[slack-wise]

c/o macmanx  🤣🤣🤣

[infiniterichesinalittleroom]

I must point one mistake: there is a notice in one vitrine describing the objects represented in my pictures as 'symbols.' I'd appreciate your correcting this. They are objects (bells, skies, trees, etc.) and not 'symbols.' In the representational arts, symbols are for the most part employed by artists who are very respectful of a certain way of thinking: that of endowing an object with some conventional and commonplace meaning. My concept of painting, on the contrary, tends to restore to the objects their value as objects (which never fails to shock those who cannot look at a painting without automatically wondering what may be symbolic, allegorical, etc., about it). I feel it best to avoid confusion on this matter insofar as possible.

René Magritte in a letter to Philippe Roberts-Jones, 26 April 1964

[linguisten]

Noam Chomsky, the Quixotic linguist

By Phil Hall George Lakoff was one of the people involved in the Generative Semantics project. They believed there was a deep structure to meaning. But it failed. It failed because meaning is fuzzy and tautological and hardly something that can be explained in branching tree diagrammes. But subsequently the generative semanticists, and especially Lakoff, learned from their mistakes. This lead them to a new way of explaining meaning through embodied experience as metaphor. This was their deep structure. In doing so they began to disagree with ideas of thought that were about cognition as a kind of optimised information processing. Noam Chomsky, a deeply rational and lucid man, made certain assumptions based on tried and tested principles from the philosophy of science. Lakoff and others called this an objectification of something that was actually deeply subjective and experiential; namely the interplay between experience and language. This was some time ago. Their positions haven’t changed much for 30 years.

[authorkims]