Прошу перевести текст по лингвистике

[LINGVOMEN]

http://www.une.edu.au/bcss/linguistics/nsm/semantics-in-brief.php
http://www.une.edu.au/bcss/linguistics/nsm/explications.php

[LINGVOMEN]

текст небольшой, очень интересный
перевод много труда не займет, а кому то польза будет

[LINGVOMEN]

NSM Semantics in brief

    The basic idea of the NSM approach is that we should try to describe complex meanings in terms of simpler ones. For example, to state the meaning of a semantically complex word we should try to give a paraphrase composed of words which are simpler and easier to understand than the original. This method of semantic analysis is called "reductive paraphrase" and the products are called "explications". Reductive paraphrase prevents us from getting tangled up in circular and obscure definitions, problems which greatly hamper conventional dictionaries and other approaches to linguistic semantics. No technical terms, neologisms, logical symbols, or abbreviations are allowed in reductive paraphrase explications– only plain words from ordinary natural language.

    Assuming that reductive paraphrase can be made to work as a method of analysing meanings, it follows that every language has an irreducible "semantic core" which would be left after all the complex expressions had been dealt with. This semantic core must have a language-like structure, with a lexicon of indefinable expressions ("semantic primes") and a grammar, i.e. some principles governing how the lexical elements can be combined. The semantic primes and their principles of combination constitute a kind of "mini-language" with the same expressive power as a full natural language.

    If languages all have irreducible semantic cores, how do we find them? By semantic experimentation; i.e. by attempting to actually explicate meanings of many different kinds from many different languages, aiming always to reduce the terms of the explications to the smallest possible set. This is exactly what Anna Wierzbicka and colleagues have been doing over a period of more than thirty years. The set of 64 semantic primes (Goddard and Wierzbicka Eds 2002, Goddard Ed 2008) is the fruit of that program of research, which, it should be stressed, is not yet regarded as complete.

    When Wierzbicka and colleagues claim that DO, BECAUSE, and GOOD, for example, are semantic primes, they are claiming (i) that these words are essential for explicating the meanings of numerous other words and grammatical constructions, and (ii) that they cannot themselves be explicated in a non-circular fashion, i.e. that their meanings are conceptually simple. The same applies to other examples of semantic primes such as: I, YOU, SOMEONE, SOMETHING, THIS, HAPPEN, MOVE, KNOW, THINK, WANT, SAY, WHERE, WHEN, NOT, MAYBE, LIKE, KIND OF, PART OF. Notice that all these terms identify intuitively intelligible meanings which are grounded in ordinary linguistic experience.

    Although the primes just mentioned have just been expressed using English words, NSM researchers believe that they are semantic fundamentals in all languages and therefore that there will be equivalent expressions ("exponents") in all languages. A growing body of research, begun in Goddard and Wierzbicka (eds 1994) and continued in Goddard and Wierzbicka (eds 2002), Goddard (ed. 2008), and range of other publications, suggests that this is indeed the case. NSM studies have been carried out in a wide range of a languages, including English, Russian, French, Spanish, Polish, Danish, Italian, Ewe, Amharic, Malay, Japanese, Chinese, Korean, Mbula (PNG), East Cree, Yankunytjatjara, Arrernte, and Maori, among others.

    Finally, a few more words about the conceptual status of semantic primes. In Anna Wierzbicka's writings the terms 'semantic' and 'conceptual' are used more or less interchangeably, the idea being that semantic primes represent elements of linguistic conceptualisation, i.e. elements out of which complex linguistic concepts are built. Some critics find this usage (i.e. semantic = conceptual) objectionable and insist that independent psycholinguistic evidence is required before one can make any conceptual deductions from purely semantic analysis. Wierzbicka's view (like that of Leibniz before her) is that semantic analysis is by its nature a conceptual inquiry, because meanings are not external or objective entities, but, so to speak, creatures of the mind. This is no mere terminological issue, but it would take too long to go into this issue in any depth here.

SEMANTIC PRIMES

    The NSM model has changed a lot since it was first advanced in the early 1970s. In Anna Wierzbicka's 1972 book Semantic Primitives, only 14 semantic primitives were proposed and in her 1980 book Lingua Mentalis, the inventory was not much bigger. Over the 1980s and 1990s, however, the number of proposed primes was expanded greatly, and has now reached a total of 64. The same period also saw the development of some important new ideas about the syntax of the semantic metalanguage. The current proposed primes can be presented, using their English exponents, in the Table below. Perhaps not surprisingly, the inventory of primes looks like a natural language in miniature. As with any language, the "mini-language" of semantic primes has a grammar, as well as a lexicon. This is described in brief below.



Five important points about identifying semantic primes are:

    (1) A mere list is not sufficient, in itself, to identify the intended meanings, if only because many of these English exponents are polysemous (i.e. have several meanings), but only one sense of each is proposed as primitive. While it is claimed that the simplest sense of the exponent words can be matched across languages (i.e. that they are "lexical universals"), it is recognised that their secondary, polysemic meanings may differ widely from language to language. A fuller characterisation indicates for each proposed prime a set of "canonical contexts" in which it can occur; that is, a set of sentences or sentence fragments exemplifying its allowable grammatical contexts.

    (2) When we say that a semantic prime ought to be a lexical universal, the term "lexical" is being used in a broad sense. An exponent of a semantic prime may be a phraseme or a bound morpheme, just so long as it expresses the requisite meaning. For example, in English the prime A LONG TIME is expressed by a phraseme, though in many languages the same meaning is conveyed by a single word. In many Australian languages the prime BECAUSE is expressed by a suffix.

    (3) Even when semantic primes take the form of single words, there is no need for them to be morphologically simple. For example, in English the words SOMEONE and INSIDE are morphologically complex, but their meanings are not composed from the meanings of the morphological "bits" in question. That is, the meaning SOMEONE does not equal "some + one"; the meaning INSIDE does not equal "in + side". In meaning terms, SOMEONE and INSIDE are indivisible.

    (4) Exponents of semantic primes can have language-specific variant forms (allolexes or allomorphs, indicated by ~ in the table above). For example, in English the word 'else' is an alloex of OTHER; likewise, the word 'thing' functions as an allolex of SOMETHING when it is combined with a determiner or quantifier (i.e. this something = this thing, one something = one thing).

    (5) Exponents of semantic primes may have different morphosyntactic characteristics, and hence belong to different "parts of speech", in different languages, without this necessarily disturbing their essential combinatorial properties.

All these factors mean that testing the cross-linguistic viability of the semantic primes is no straightforward matter. It requires rich and reliable data, and careful language-internal analysis of polysemy, allolexy, etc. Though cross-linguistic testing of this kind is still in progress, the prospectus seems promising. The existence and lexicalised status of semantic primes has been confirmed for more than 30 languages of widely different linguistic types and from widely different cultural settings. There are a couple of difficult and/or contested cases, but the great balance of evidence favours the hypothesis that semantic primes are both universal and have lexical exponents in all languages.
AN NSM SKETCH GRAMMAR

[Sirko]

А этого мало? 
http://www.une.edu.au/bcss/linguistics/nsm/pdfs/gladkova-ch2-forthcoming.pdf

[LINGVOMEN]

это я прочитал, там немного нето, как мне кажется

в частности нет этого абзаца например:

Predicates, valency options and complements

We can think of a simple NSM clause as consisting of a predicate, such as HAPPEN, DO, SAY or WANT, together with one or more substantive phrases whose nature is constrained by the identity of the predicate. In addition to a minimal frame, predicates typically allow extended frames in which additional arguments identify or fill out the aspects of the situation implied by the nature of the predicate. These optional extras are termed "valency options". For example, HAPPEN allows us to speak not only of 'something happening', but also of 'something happening to someone' or 'something happening to something'. Likewise, with  DO it is possible to add an additional argument and speak of 'doing something to someone' or 'doing something to something'. This frame can be further extended to speak of 'doing something to something with something' (an "instrument" option). Another option for DO is the "comitative" option, as when we speak of 'doing something with someone'. This means that all the following arrays are licensed by NSM sytnax. Furthermore, all predicates can combine with the "meta-predicates" or "predicate operators" NOT and CAN.

[LINGVOMEN]

русская лингвистика отсталая на энцеть лет
перевести подобные тексты для людей русскоязычных это же хорошее занятие
польза
русские как правило неотзывчивые совсем
и ленивые
поэтому русская лингвистика и всё остальное отстало безнадежно

[O]

Ах, Вежбицка, Вежбицка. Знакомая фамилия. Она сама могла бы перевести.

[Sirko]

там немного нето, как мне кажется

в частности нет этого абзаца например:

Синтаксические свойства примитивов определяются в списке канонических контекстов или канонических предложений (canonical contexts/sentences) (Goddard and Wierzbicka 1994, 2002). Канонические контексты представляют собой сочетания примитивов, которые отражают их синтаксические свойства и которые могут быть использованы в семантических толкованиях. Например, у примитива ГОВОРИТЬ/СКАЗАТЬ следующие канонические контексты (Goddard 2008a: 14):
Х сказал что-то
Х сказал что-то кому-то
Х сказал что-то о чем-то
Х сказал что-то некоторыми словами
Х сказал: «---»
Таким же образом можно выделить канонические предложения для каждого примитива. Экспоненты примитивов в русском языке, их синтаксические свойства и канонические предложения будут описаны в главе 3.

[O]

русская лингвистика отсталая на энцеть лет

Ничего подобного. В российском языкознании наработки на многие сотни и тысячи лет вперёд. С этим багажом спешить некуда.

русские как правило неотзывчивые совсем

Расположение русского — это дар, который могут заслужить немногие. Вряд ли такие как LINGVOMEN.

и ленивые

Что же было биться головой в закрытые ворота? Только опозориться...

[I. G.]

русская лингвистика отсталая на энцеть лет
перевести подобные тексты для людей русскоязычных это же хорошее занятие
польза

Ну вот и переведите сами! 

[LINGVOMEN]

Ах, Вежбицка, Вежбицка. Знакомая фамилия. Она сама могла бы перевести.

две страницы текста тут могли бы очень многие перевести

это не трудно и польза для многих

[Dana]

Ничего подобного. В российском языкознании наработки на многие сотни и тысячи лет вперёд. С этим багажом спешить некуда.

Вероятно, вы плохо знаете российское языкознание.

[LINGVOMEN]

русская лингвистика отсталая на энцеть лет
перевести подобные тексты для людей русскоязычных это же хорошее занятие
польза

Ну вот и переведите сами! 

обязательно найдется великодушный

какой нибудь хотябы студент

подожду, ачо

[LINGVOMEN]

Ничего подобного. В российском языкознании наработки на многие сотни и тысячи лет вперёд. С этим багажом спешить некуда.

Вероятно, вы плохо знаете российское языкознание.

может быть я всётаки ошибаться, но его нет таки

есть хорошие класики буржуские тридцатилетней выдержки

[Alone Coder]

А я?

[I. G.]

А я?

А Вы фрик! 

[LINGVOMEN]

а я - это альфа и амега

[O]

две страницы текста тут могли бы очень многие перевести
это не трудно и польза для многих

Сами чего не переведёте? Нерусский, что ли? 

[LINGVOMEN]

А я?

А Вы фрик! 

тоесть бальной придурок странный

[LINGVOMEN]

две страницы текста тут могли бы очень многие перевести
это не трудно и польза для многих

Сами чего не переведёте? Нерусский, что ли? 

я зарегистрировался и открыл эту тему в ней я прошу перевисти текст
с англиского на руский
http://www.une.edu.au/bcss/linguistics/nsm/semantics-in-brief.php
http://www.une.edu.au/bcss/linguistics/nsm/explications.php
потомушо надо и интересно

[Alone Coder]

мы паруски плоха пишым такшо извинити