Introduction to Linguistics: Semantics 1

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 13

  • @SurajPrasad-mz1nx
    @SurajPrasad-mz1nx 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Well explained on Lexical Semantics! 👏

  • @AshishSharma-tr7yl
    @AshishSharma-tr7yl ปีที่แล้ว

    Beautifully explained!

  • @veronicanoordzee6440
    @veronicanoordzee6440 19 วันที่ผ่านมา

    @ 04:20 Gottlob Frege (1848-1925)
    @ 19:48 For him it's a single entity, but not for me. My neighbour has the same name.

  • @nitishgautam5728
    @nitishgautam5728 8 หลายเดือนก่อน

    15:27 brain has complex neural networks , Just one definition of word may be stored in tone different ways and associations ... We very easily understand a word but that word is processed intuitively parallel by unconscious mind.

  • @beroal
    @beroal ปีที่แล้ว +1

    It seems that Professor Futrell concludes that the brain doesn't store dictionary definitions from the fact that dictionary definitions are circular. It's an issue rather of specific dictionaries than of the concept of dictionary definition. Mathematics doesn't contain definition cycles. Thus it's possible to eliminate definition cycles. Yes, mathematics contains a small number of notions which aren't defined, but are explained practically (in a proof writing class). There is a linguist who recognized the problem of definition cycles and tried to solve it in the mathematical way, Anna Wierzbicka.

  • @ramzy-6566
    @ramzy-6566 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    Thank you for Semantics video.

  • @elayelay1657
    @elayelay1657 5 หลายเดือนก่อน

    is this the same to the semantic structures?

  • @SABASAJJAD-c6l
    @SABASAJJAD-c6l 10 หลายเดือนก่อน

    How can we bifurcate two abstract nouns having similar words without using image and words in the real world?

  • @sorahana7
    @sorahana7 6 หลายเดือนก่อน

    ❤❤❤

  • @MrFleepo
    @MrFleepo ปีที่แล้ว

    Prof. Futrell, Excellent course! Question: Kurt Gödel said that either the rules of mathematics are incomplete but certain or complete but uncertain. I think he leaned toward mathematics being certain, but not fully capturable by rules. Do you, professor, see any similar situation occurring in the rules of language? In other words, do you find that the rules of language are never quite thorough enough to accommodate all aspects of a language, but yet, the language is perfectly understandable to those who know it: making it, in this sense, certain (i.e. the meaning is understood, barring some ambiguity) but not able to be quite contained within rules?

  • @gabor6259
    @gabor6259 2 ปีที่แล้ว

    I would add that a common noun _can_ refer to just one thing instead of a set of things (like if there were only one cat in the world) but then you could say that that set has only one element and sets with one element are still sets.

  • @thesilenttreatment6837
    @thesilenttreatment6837 2 ปีที่แล้ว +2

    How about undead? I guess that has no reference.

  • @alecbachmann53
    @alecbachmann53 3 หลายเดือนก่อน

    Thanks you very much for the lecture. One thing that constantly destroyed my Focus was the way you pull up your eyebrows, when you explain something - really triggers me 😅