Post by Eugene 2.0 on Oct 22, 2020 20:58:06 GMT
Just take a look at these dialogues:
- What time is it?
- You'd better never know it.
- I'm looking for a big library, is this the right way?
- Right.
- Could you stop playing computer games?
- Save it, sister.
Probably, they aren't the best to illustrate an idea of how we can spoil or vice versa fix our dialogues by using semantic coincidences. In the very first dialogue a responder gives us kinda unexpected answer, so it makes to be an anecdote situation. The second one is less sane because of whether the answer is elliptic, and we can think that the responder nods to the question, or not; or we might start guessing what exactly he meant by that answer? The third one is to be ambiguous, because we don't know exactly what the responder tries to answer (to his sister? or maybe he uses "sister" as a cliche word?).
Anyway, there are two interesting principles you can find in semantics, and, particularly, see them in those examples.
Correlations in semantics means: that whichever phrases/words you use you can be lucky, or unlucky with the answer. Or, briefly, you may see variations or combinations between any two phrases are, however, some of them are pairing with each other in some way.
[Pairing of any two (or more) phrases is how they connect with each other: is to check their correctness or accommodation, or composition, or beauty, etc (anything you might figure it out here).]
Repairing in semantics is trying to fix one pairing to another one. And this principle is important to get for anyone, and to use it for anyone. The result of it has an impact of any conversation or a dialogue, and can help to get along people to find their common language, their common view of the world and the rest of it.
By the way, ontology of this last principle is an interesting too, but I don't wanna long about this this time.
- What time is it?
- You'd better never know it.
- I'm looking for a big library, is this the right way?
- Right.
- Could you stop playing computer games?
- Save it, sister.
Probably, they aren't the best to illustrate an idea of how we can spoil or vice versa fix our dialogues by using semantic coincidences. In the very first dialogue a responder gives us kinda unexpected answer, so it makes to be an anecdote situation. The second one is less sane because of whether the answer is elliptic, and we can think that the responder nods to the question, or not; or we might start guessing what exactly he meant by that answer? The third one is to be ambiguous, because we don't know exactly what the responder tries to answer (to his sister? or maybe he uses "sister" as a cliche word?).
Anyway, there are two interesting principles you can find in semantics, and, particularly, see them in those examples.
Correlations in semantics means: that whichever phrases/words you use you can be lucky, or unlucky with the answer. Or, briefly, you may see variations or combinations between any two phrases are, however, some of them are pairing with each other in some way.
[Pairing of any two (or more) phrases is how they connect with each other: is to check their correctness or accommodation, or composition, or beauty, etc (anything you might figure it out here).]
Repairing in semantics is trying to fix one pairing to another one. And this principle is important to get for anyone, and to use it for anyone. The result of it has an impact of any conversation or a dialogue, and can help to get along people to find their common language, their common view of the world and the rest of it.
By the way, ontology of this last principle is an interesting too, but I don't wanna long about this this time.