Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Genuinely distinct lexical senses would be expected to be... — Carmelics
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Philosophy of Language
    HistoryEditSee Inverse

    Part of a larger discussion

    Supports→If no language is found that uses distinct words for the allegedly distinct senses of a word, a unitary account of that word should be sought

    Genuinely distinct lexical senses would be expected to be independently lexicalized in at least some unrelated languages

    Philosophy of Language
    ?Rate how convincing each reason is below to see the overall strength.

    No one has weighed in yet. Be the first to share reasons for or against this statement.

    Sign in or register to share your perspective on this statement.

    Topics

    Philosophy of Language

    Related

    Failure to find any such language is evidence that the alleged senses do not con...If no language is found that uses distinct words for the allegedly distinct sens...

    Similar

    Therefore, if unrelated languages independently lexicalize the two all...

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Browse more in Philosophy of Language
    Related propositions within the same area of thought.
    93%
    Finding that unrelated languages use distinct words for two alleged se...85%
    If no language is found that uses distinct words for the allegedly dis...78%
    Annotations are therefore typically restricted to the senses of a few ...76%

    Source

    AI-extracted
    SEP: ambiguity
    View source passageHide passage
    The notion of definition here has to be taken as a heavy-weight notion: ‘bank’ is ambiguous even though you can ‘define’ it as ‘financial institution or river side’. However, we can get a reasonable grip on what Aristotle had in mind. ‘Uncle’ is not ambiguous because it has a single definition that covers both: x is an uncle iff x is the brother of y and y has a child. The test depends partly on how strict we are about what counts as a definition. And on the assumption that there are interesti

    Details

    Type
    premise
    Perspectives
    0 (0 for, 0 against)
    Edits
    1 edit

    Open for perspectives

    This idea is waiting for its first supporting or challenging perspective.

    Share the first perspective