# Alternatives to morphological negation with verbs?



## ThomasK

I was looking up 'to discover' and 'to cover' in Finnish. Both are simply two distinct words, so it seems to me, and I think there is no morphological negation of verbs in some languages.&nbsp;yet, to me as a westerner full of illusions, it seems so strange not to be able to do that (retaining the link with the active 'positive' (?) word --- or concept.

 So: what alternatives are there? And: could that imply a different worldview?


----------



## Hulalessar

Whether it is the case that some languages have absolutely no derivational suffixes that negate the meaning of a verb I do not know, but it is what would be expected in an isolating language. If there are such languages I do not think it implies a different world view. After all in English, for example, you cannot negate just any "reversible" verb in this way.


----------



## ThomasK

You might be right. I might have jumped to conclusions. 

I suddenly remember that Finnish does use some kind of prefixes in some cases, but rather lexical, and not to express negation. I just thought this kind of word-building betrays (perception of) links between different words that are not perceived in others. I remember _vali_- in Finnish somehow connects 'means', 'indirect' and 'distance': _vali_- refers to something like in-between. I'd never think of such a link, starting from my own Germanic words. That reminded me of worldviews, but that might not be the right association.


----------



## Perseas

Does it mean that in Finnish there is no morphological negation of verbs at all, or it applies only to "cover" and "discover"?
In Greek there are such morphemes, e.g. *ξε/α/αν*, but you can't put them in front of every verb. For example: _σκεπάζω_ (= cover) - _*ξε*σκεπάζω_ (= uncover), but _τρέχω_ (= run) cannot have such negation. Also, some verbs take on another meaning (not negative or opposite) when they have such morphermes. For example: _πουλώ _(= sell), but _*ξε*πουλώ_ (=sell out).


----------



## ThomasK

I must say I am not that sure, cannot ask Finnish speakers right now, but it seemed to me that it did not exist with verbs. 

The Greek principle is probably INdoEuropean. In Latin, French, etc., I recognize something similar, but it is no longer productive. The interesting is that in West Germanic language the mechanism still is productive: we can produce new words using new words and old prefixen (uitgetwitterd - twittered so much that there is nothing more to say).

I happen to see that in some cases we can use a lexical expression as well:_ losmaken, to loosen, losmaak _(South African), etc.


----------



## myšlenka

ThomasK said:


> I was looking up 'to discover' and 'to cover' in Finnish. Both are simply two distinct words, so it seems to me, and I think there is no morphological negation of verbs in some languages.&nbsp;yet, to me as a westerner full of illusions, it seems so strange not to be able to do that (retaining the link with the active 'positive' (?) word --- or concept.


My intuitions about English might be wrong, but your example is perhaps not the best one. The difference between 'discover' and 'cover' seems to be more than a simple negation:
1) Columbus discovered America.
2) Columbus covered America.

For me, the root word ''cover" has entirely different interpretations in 1) and 2). If I translate them into my own native language, there would be no morphological similarity between them at all and I suspect that the same is true for Dutch.


----------



## Youngfun

Cover/discover should be Romance loanwords. In Italian it's coprire/scoprire.
I would say that discover is a special case, in which the negation isn't perceived very much, probably because the meaning is quite metaphorical. For instance, you compare it with "misunderstand" or "disqualify", where the negation is clear.


----------



## ThomasK

Thanks, but the principle is common, I think, to IE-languages: prefix + V. But you're right: the meaning of _discover _has developed, and is not as literal as in _mis- _or _dis_-. However, the point is: some languages do not seem to refer to a link between two actions (which we'd call opposites), and/or they name it a morphologically non-negative way.

Of course: are they real opposites?


----------



## LilianaB

myšlenka said:


> My intuitions about English might be wrong, but your example is perhaps not the best one. The difference between 'discover' and 'cover' seems to be more than a simple negation:
> 1) Columbus discovered America.
> 2) Columbus covered America.
> 
> For me, the root word ''cover" has entirely different interpretations in 1) and 2). If I translate them into my own native language, there would be no morphological similarity between them at all and I suspect that the same is true for Dutch.



Yes, d_iscovered_ here would be closer in meaning to _uncovered_ -- _made known_.


----------



## ThomasK

OK, I agree to some extent, i.e.: _dis-cover _might have a separate meaning, dis- not strictly meaning un-. But I think that etymologically this dis- is at least neg., in the sense of 'away from'. I now find out that it means: 


> discooperire, from L. dis- "opposite of" (see dis-) + cooperire "to cover up"



My example was not perfect. But how about Lithuanian? Do you use a prefix in this case, or in case of "truly negative" verbs?


----------



## myšlenka

When I am thinking about it, I am not sure it's very common to use a negative prefix with verbs to express true negation. Many verbs don't seem to have an obvious negative meaning, i.e. what is the opposite of "run"?


----------



## ThomasK

Well, in my view one could sustain that 'slow down' is an opposite, or standing still, or .... It is probably true, though: the strict opposite does not always/ often really exist. But aren't 'handsome' and 'ugly', 'good' and 'bad', 'grammatical/ ungrammatical' kind-of straight opposites? They are considered like that, I think, but yin-yang shows that they are not strict opposites, or that opposites somehow need each other. But that would be a separate thread. 

But let us assume there are kind-of opposites, and see whether one can make one word negative morphologically or otherwise, while retaining the link with the original. My ultimate question seems to be: is it somehow more evident/logical/... to keep the/ a link with the so-called positive or maybe 'unmarked' word/concept?


----------



## myšlenka

ThomasK said:


> Well, in my view one could sustain that 'slow down' is an opposite, or standing still, or .... It is probably true, though: the strict opposite does not always/ often really exist. But aren't 'handsome' and 'ugly', 'good' and 'bad', 'grammatical/ ungrammatical' kind-of straight opposites? They are considered like that, I think, but yin-yang shows that they are not strict opposites, or that opposites somehow need each other. But that would be a separate thread.
> 
> But let us assume there are kind-of opposites, and see whether one can make one word negative morphologically or otherwise, while retaining the link with the original. My ultimate question seems to be: is it somehow more evident/logical/... to keep the/ a link with the so-called positive or maybe 'unmarked' word/concept?


 I am not sure if you are asking about negation of verbs or of adjectives in this thread.

1) If you are asking about adjectives.
 You find many pairs of adjectives that are non-related and opposites (just like the ones you mention). You also find adjectives that are related and opposites (happy - unhappy). This is true in Finnish too (see here). However, I don't think you can find a language that exclusively relies on the former strategy, i.e. non-related opposites. Languages may differ as to what strategy is used for this and this adjective, but I don't see any reason for this to cause differences in world view.

2) If you are asking about verbs.
  I wasn't really asking for the opposite of "to run", it was just serving as an example of how difficult it is to define the opposite action of most verbs. Moreover, in most cases where one seems to find an (etymologically) negative prefix like in _misbehave, mislead, misunderstand _etc there is more going on than a simple negation. The core meaning of the root verb changes so it's hardly surprising that you find languages where the apparent positive and negated form of an English verb are completely unrelated in the language in question. Some of them also imply a reversal of a previous action, e.g. English "to undo" (which does not mean the same thing as "not to do".) I don't think this has anything to do with different world views.

In my own native language (Norwegian), I can't think of any cases where I use a prefix on verbs to negate their meaning. That job would be carried out by prepositions, particles, different verbs etc.


----------



## ThomasK

I do not focus on adjectives, I'd say, but I'd be willing to include them if useful. I had been thinking of verbs. However, _mis_- does not refer to a negation or an opposite, I'd say, but what you point out, is true: negation of a concept is almost a philosophical issue (what is, or what is considered as, the opposite?), and that might be one reason why negation as a morphological process is not so common (because the so-called opposites are not real opposites). 

I am beginning to think that the concept of opposites is even culture-specific to some extent. 

I'll see now whether any other language speaker from non-IE languages comes up with new ideas on this.


----------



## LilianaB

ThomasK said:


> OK, I agree to some extent, i.e.: _dis-cover _might have a separate meaning, dis- not strictly meaning un-. But I think that etymologically this dis- is at least neg., in the sense of 'away from'. I now find out that it means:
> 
> 
> My example was not perfect. But how about Lithuanian? Do you use a prefix in this case, or in case of "truly negative" verbs?



All verbs in Lithuanian, Polish and Russian can be negated. In Lithuanian you just add the prefix _ne_ in front of the verb (even if it already has some prepositions as suffixes in the frontal position). Also there is a double, triple or quadruple negation -- _I don't see nothing nowhere, sort of_. It is similar in Polish and Russian, except the negating particle is separate from the verb -- _nie_. I don't think there are innately, truly negative verbs in those languages,   because such Latin prefixes as _dis_, for example are not used. I have to give it more thought, but I don't think so.


----------



## myšlenka

ThomasK said:


> I do not focus on adjectives, I'd say, but I'd be willing to include them if useful. I had been thinking of verbs. However, _mis_- does not refer to a negation or an opposite, I'd say, but what you point out, is true: negation of a concept is almost a philosophical issue (what is, or what is considered as, the opposite?), and that might be one reason why negation as a morphological process is not so common (because the so-called opposites are not real opposites).


 You are right. The prefix mis- is not a negation.
But it's still unclear to me what you are looking for.


----------



## ThomasK

I am sorry if things seem unclear. _(The problem is that I generally have a hunch or a feeling, and then have to try to think it through in order to formulate the question, but then start from some assumptions that are biased, or not well-founded, or simply untrue... That's why I need all of you to see clear... ;-( ) 
_
Let's try to break up my question into parts: 

(1) Can you make a verb negative using morphemes? (Like _cover/ uncover _(_discover _too, I think, but it is not always neg.),_ tie/untie, ...)
_(2) If not: how do you go about it? Only using words with different roots (lexical way), or ... ? 
(3) Is there some way of linking the opposites (verbs) non-morphologically, i.e., show the (inherent...) link? 
(4) Or do you think there is a good reason why opposites (verbs) often don't show that link? Or maybe: why do you have lexical opposites (_good/ bad_, ...), and only sometimes a morphological negative form, like _kind/unkind, economic/ uneconomic (_?)


----------



## myšlenka

ThomasK said:


> (1) Can you make a verb negative using morphemes? (Like _cover/ uncover _(_discover _too, I think, but it is not always neg.),_ tie/untie, ...)
> _(2) If not: how do you go about it? Only using words with different roots (lexical way), or ... ?
> (3) Is there some way of linking the opposites (verbs) non-morphologically, i.e., show the (inherent...) link?
> (4) Or do you think there is a good reason why opposites (verbs) often don't show that link? Or maybe: why do you have lexical opposites (_good/ bad_, ...), and only sometimes a morphological negative form, like _kind/unkind, economic/ uneconomic (_?)


(1) Yes, sentential negation in Slavic languages and Farsi (these are the ones I can mention right here and now) is formed by attaching a negative morpheme to the verb stem.
(2) It depends on what kind of negation you mean, denying the denotation of the verb alltogether or reversing an action. If you are denying the existence of the action denoted by the verb, then you would probably go for sentential negation. Slavic/Farsi would use affixing, Dutch would probably use a free morpheme. If you are talking about reversing an action, you could probably use various strategies. English can make use of _un-_ as in _undo, untie. _You can also have completely independent lexical items (maybe _find vs hide_) or you could use prepositions/particles as in _go in_ and _go out_.
(3) If the verb stem is the same, then they are already linked in some way. If not, I don't really see any need for linking them.
(4) Again, it's a question of what kind of opposites you are talking about. As we have seen already, apparently negated verbs (not sentential negation) have different meanings. Different meanings = different verbs. Hence, there is no need for them to be related. As for the morphologically negative adjectives, it's probably a question of what is practical and of historical accident. In principle there is nothing wrong with alternations liked _big/non-big_ instead of _big_/_small_, but to me it seems impractical. Furthermore, French has no word for _cheap_, you would have say something like _not expensive. _Impractial maybe, but it works for them. Different languages, different histories.


----------



## LilianaB

Well, Thomas, in Baltic, and in Slavic languages (Polish and Russian -- I don't know much about other Slavic languages) the suffixes that you use with certain verbs -- like _to uncover_, or  _kill_, for example don't have anything to do with negativity, but rather with direction or completing the action. I will use an exmaple from Polish, because it might be easier -- _od_ would be the suffix to indicte undoing of something (but not always -- it has to be examined case by case -- al*so* so the _d_ could change into _t_ sometimes, depending on the phonetic make-up of the word, _od_ -- away from) _Odkry*ć* _(to uncover), _otworzy_*ć* - (to open). It just indicates direction. _Za_ indictes completion -- _zaprze_*ć* _(drzwi) _to block the door, _zabi_*ć* -- to kill (_bi*ć* _-- to beat -- root). So, these are not really negative suffixes by themselves -- they may express different things depnding on the root verb.Some of those verbs may not even be divided into a suffix and a stem, because their separate parts would make little sense in their contemporary version.


----------



## e2-e4 X

myšlenka said:


> In principle there is nothing wrong with alternations liked _big/non-big_ instead of _big_/_small_


Except it is ugly.  Why _big/non-big_ and not _small/non-small_? It breaks the symmetry… And the main thing is, sometimes we want to say that a thing is neither big nor small. Or we just don't want to say whether it is small and only state it's not really big for our purposes; this shouldn't automatically mean it's small.


> Furthermore, French has no word for _cheap_, you would have say something like _not expensive. _Impractial maybe, but it works for them. Different languages, different histories.


It's making me wonder… But they probably have some synonyms to say that something comes cheap or sells cheap, has a low price, without telling anything about its being expensive or not, right? Thanks!


----------



## JuanEscritor

ThomasK said:


> Let's try to break up my question into parts:
> 
> (1) Can you make a verb negative using morphemes? (Like _cover/ uncover _(_discover _too, I think, but it is not always neg.),_ tie/untie, ...)
> _(2) If not: how do you go about it? Only using words with different roots (lexical way), or ... ?
> (3) Is there some way of linking the opposites (verbs) non-morphologically, i.e., show the (inherent...) link?
> (4) Or do you think there is a good reason why opposites (verbs) often don't show that link? Or maybe: why do you have lexical opposites (_good/ bad_, ...), and only sometimes a morphological negative form, like _kind/unkind, economic/ uneconomic (_?)


I'll try to answer these for English:


No.
For most verbs this is syntactic: the verb _do_ is added (properly conjugated) and followed by _not_ (generally contracted) followed by the verb.  A select number of verbs allow _not_ alone to form their negations (_be_, _have_, _will_, etc.) and these are also generally contracted.
It depends on what you include in your pairing of opposites; but that is a philosophical question, not a linguistic one.
English doesn't mark verbal negation morphologically; the prefixing you are describing is _derivational _affixing, while the formation of negatives would be _inflectional _(and something English doesn't have for verbs).
 
JE


----------



## ThomasK

But as for 1: you can sometimes _un_-, can't you? Or maybe _dis_-, though not simply negative (well, there is as- vs. dis-, but that might be considered different)?
As for 3 : OK, but taking one simple definition of opposites (the tradtional one): ... ?
As for 4: I had been wondering whether these prefixes were not an aspect of morphology. The endings are, aren't they? Sorry, if I was wrong.


----------



## LilianaB

Isn't _undo_ different than _not to do_, though? (real negation) The meaning obviously is different: what I meant was as a type of verb, in relation to its formation and function.


----------



## e2-e4 X

myšlenka said:


> Many verbs don't seem to have an obvious negative meaning, i.e. what is the opposite of "run"?


I think it is instead obvious. The opposite of "running" is "not running". If English had a verb that would exactly express that somebody doesn't run and wouldn't express anything in addition, then it would be the perfect opposite of the verb "to run" (the innate property of opposites seems to be that they exclude each other), but English doesn't have such a verb. Consider, for example the verb "to lack", that seems to be a very good opposite for the verb "to have".


----------



## JuanEscritor

e2-e4 X said:


> Consider, for example the verb "to lack", that seems to be a very good opposite for the verb "to have".


Or _want _or _miss_.  Which on is the true opposite?  What criteria are you using to decide?


----------



## ThomasK

Is the oppositie of 'to run' that obvious? 'Not to run' leaves a lot of room for interpretation, I think: walking slowly, standing still, etc. So indeed, the true opposite here is not clear. _To close/ to disclose _seems different already, I mean, those seem 'truer' opposites to me. Having and missing seem like opposites, but those are not the only ones, I suppose: having and getting might be considered opposites too, then, I suppose. I suppose a lot has to do with the 'preciseness' (precision) of a word/concept's meaning. 

BTW: _cheap _in French is _bon-marché_ in Fr., _goedkoop_ in Dutch (it seems like a calque).


----------



## e2-e4 X

Juan Escritor said:


> Or _want _or _miss_.  Which on is the true opposite?  What criteria are you using to decide?


Well, I think one word can have many opposites in a language. I can't understand why 'want' might be an opposite for 'have', because wanting doesn't even contradict having. I use two criteria:
1) two opposites contradict each other: the more they do so, the better; *
2) an opposite adds as little as possible to the contradition of the other word's meaning.
According to these criteria, the perfect opposites are "good/not good" and "bad/not bad", and a less exact pair of opposites is "bad/good".

* For example, getting seems to be a partial opposite of having, because getting could imply you didn't have the thing in the beginning but means you have it in the end.



			
				ThomasK said:
			
		

> 'Not to run' leaves a lot of room for interpretation, I think: walking slowly, standing still, etc.


Indeed. Just like "to run" or any other expression. One could run in so many ways, for example, the purposes can be different: the runner wants to be in time, or the runner wants to escape a danger, etc.


----------



## JuanEscritor

ThomasK said:


> But as for 1: you can sometimes _un_-, can't you? Or maybe _dis_-, though not simply negative (well, there is as- vs. dis-, but that might be considered different)?


No, you can't.  That is not a negative, the prefix _un-_ does not mean 'not': _uncover _does not mean 'not cover', it means 'to remove the cover from something'.  


> As for 3 : OK, but taking one simple definition of opposites (the tradtional one): ... ?


Still philosophy and not linguistics.


> As for 4: I had been wondering whether these prefixes were not an aspect of morphology. The endings are, aren't they? Sorry, if I was wrong.


The prefixes are aspects of morphology, sure, but they are not part of inflectional morphology (which is what it would be to morphologically negate a verb); they are part of derivational morphology (they unpredictably change the meaning/part of speech of the verb).  Verbal negation should be perfectly productive; but what you've described is not perfectly productive: We can have _to ride _and the productive negative formation _to not ride_ (_do not ride_ when conjugated) but there is nothing productive about _unride _or_ disride_, which almost anyone will tell you are meaningless non-words.

True negation in English is phrasal, not morphological.

JE


----------



## ThomasK

On the other hand, my point was: does not having this V/_un_-V combination imply that one language (...) does not perceive a [semantic] link that another one does? Does it refer to a different worldview in that respect? (i did not wish to imply that the former was more fundamental, let alone that one language is more precise than another !)

@JE: I see your point, I think. 'Negation' was a wrong choice, but 'opposite' might be better. As for linquistics and philosophy: doesn't pragmatics introduce some kind of philosophy/ background/ context into the linguistic theory?


----------



## myšlenka

e2-e4 X said:


> I think it is instead obvious. The opposite of "running" is "not running". If English had a verb that would exactly express that somebody doesn't run and wouldn't express anything in addition, then it would be the perfect opposite of the verb "to run" (the innate property of opposites seems to be that they exclude each other), but English doesn't have such a verb. Consider, for example the verb "to lack", that seems to be a very good opposite for the verb "to have".


Well, I am not sure that can count as an opposite. “Not running” is a basic denial of any activity of running. Every activity that doesn’t involve running would be an opposite of “run” then: sitting, driving, resting, sleeping etc. So I have to agree with ThomasK here.


ThomasK said:


> BTW: _cheap _in French is _bon-marché_ in Fr., _goedkoop_ in Dutch (it seems like a calque).


   Which again proves my point. French does not have a simplex word for cheap. You have to say it in some other way. Not expensive, good deal etc. Adjectives are not really part of the question though  


ThomasK said:


> On the other hand, my point was: does not having this V/_un_-V combination imply that one language (...) does not perceive a [semantic] link that another one does? Does it refer to a different worldview in that respect? (i did not wish to imply that the former was more fundamental, let alone that one language is more precise than another !)


Could you please find a language that uses this strategy extensively for reversing the meaning of verbs? A handful of verbs in English where this is possible is hardly enough to establish a different world view.

And what makes you think that a language lacking the V/un-V combination implies that the speakers of that particular language perceive no [semantic] link between the members of a given verb pair? The Norwegian verb for _untie_ does not contain a negative (or reversing) prefix like English does, but it certainly contains the root _tie_. Norwegian _tie_ and _untie_ are very related.

Finally, I seriously doubt the effects this may have on world views. _To open_ and _to close_ can be considered opposite actions. They are very different phonologically but people probably have enough real-world knowledge to see that they are semantically linked in spite of this.


----------



## LilianaB

Yes, I agree with some points in post 28. For me the only real opposite of _run_ is _not to run_. As to linguistics -- linguistics is really the philosophy of language, among other things, and it started as a branch of philosophy (just a side note). Such prefixes as _dis_-, _un_-, _mis_- in English don't indicate negation.


----------



## ThomasK

myšlenka said:


> Could you please find a language that uses this strategy extensively for reversing the meaning of verbs? A handful of verbs in English where this is possible is hardly enough to establish a different world view.
> 
> And what makes you think that a language lacking the V/un-V combination implies that the speakers of that particular language perceive no [semantic] link between the members of a given verb pair? The Norwegian verb for _untie_ does not contain a negative (or reversing) prefix like English does, but it certainly contains the root _tie_. Norwegian _tie_ and _untie_ are very related.
> 
> Finally, I seriously doubt the effects this may have on world views. _To open_ and _to close_ can be considered opposite actions. They are very different phonologically but people probably have enough real-world knowledge to see that they are semantically linked in spite of this.



I did not think so, I just wondered. I always look at roots of words, i.e., etymology, and thus metaphors to some extent - and that gets me going, wondering. Of course I am generally forced to review assumptions, think it through, etc. So that is fruitful, though somehow disappointing in the sense that I am again disillusioned, but I get used to that.


----------



## ThomasK

myšlenka said:


> And what makes you think that a language lacking the V/un-V combination implies that the speakers of that particular language perceive no [semantic] link between the members of a given verb pair? The Norwegian verb for _untie_ does not contain a negative (or reversing) prefix like English does, but it certainly contains the root _tie_. Norwegian _tie_ and _untie_ are very related.
> 
> Finally, I seriously doubt the effects this may have on world views. _To open_ and _to close_ can be considered opposite actions. They are very different phonologically but people probably have enough real-world knowledge to see that they are semantically linked in spite of this.


I did not think so, I just wondered. I always look at roots of words, the etymology, and that often leads me to metaphors – and their impact. That is how I got to think that there might be… But I am generally forced to review assumptions, reformulate my thoughts, etc., so that is fruitful, though somehow disappointing. ;-)

We do have a lot of phrasal verbs (…) with _ont-, weg-, af_-, which all have some negative connotation, and other languages don’t. That has got me going… So thanks for all the contributions.


----------



## arielipi

Hebrew doesnt have these(negating ones) inherently, and those we have are a translation of english ones, resulting in some difficulty to use, neglected over the years except for a few.


----------



## e2-e4 X

myšlenka said:


> Well, I am not sure that can count as an opposite. “Not running” is a basic denial of any activity of running.


Sorry, I can't see your point. You seem to say that this concept is not a real one and as such can't be counted as an opposite of anything. I can't see why; these two words (not _activities_, but _words_) do convey a meaning and therefore express a concept.

Let's take the word 'trempicate' that doesn't seem to exist in English and attach the meaning of not running to it. I guess it could be used like that: "It's not his fault that he's late!" - "It is. He trempicated". The verb is meaningful and looks like a very vivid opposite of running, although it sure doesn't exist in English.


myšlenka said:


> Every activity that doesn’t involve running would be an opposite of “run” then: sitting, driving, resting, sleeping etc.


Not quite. Any word that would mean an activity that by definition _cannot_ involve running would be an opposite of 'run', more or less precise (the less it tells in addition to contradicting the meaning of the verb 'to run', and the more natural and necessary those additions are — the more precise the opposite is). Why not?


----------



## ThomasK

It is not easy at all, it seems to me, but it looks like a useful term if we start from an exact definition of the 'posited', as you suggest... 

BTW: basically that is a metaphor as well ( in front of the 'posited', hindering us), and we have given it some kind of meaning, but it remains quite abstract, I am afraid. I am afraid the same holds of negation...


----------



## e2-e4 X

Sorry? What is not easy at all? What looks like a useful term? What you're referring to by the word 'posited'? What thing is a metaphor here? Thanks!


----------



## ThomasK

'Opposite' looks like a useful term, but it is not easy to define, I think. Opposite is a metaphor, based on _ob + ponere_, so, to put in front of and thus hinder (someone). That was very concrete, like an obstacle, but when used as an abstract word, or as a metaphor, it becomes more difficult, I think...


----------



## LilianaB

Hi, Thomas. I am not sure if verbs can have opposites, or real antonyms, at all, other than the ones resulting from the morphological negation._To be motionless_, does not necessarily mean _not to run_. _To walk _may contain the meaning of _not to run_ within its lexical field, but it may mean many other things as well. (at least in Indo-European languages).


----------



## arielipi

Hebrew:
*I*f you mean to ask if we can say "not verb-ing/ed/etc"  yes we can, but we dont have original prefixes, only translated ones.
We also have opposite verbs, sometimes by root, sometimes by binyan - they are pure opposite is worth mentioning *I* think.
חימם קירר khimem kirer are opposites, first is made something hotter, second cooler.


----------



## LilianaB

Hi. Doesn't their meaning stem from the meaning of the adjectives though -- warm and cold? Are they verbs by themselves, or do they consist of something similar to a linking verb and an adjective, or some other construction that involves an adjective.


----------



## ThomasK

@Liliana: no opposites of verbs? I do agree that the opposites (...) of 'to run' can be quite different, but depending on the definition, I suppose. If running has to do with moving fast, then it seems logical that moving slowly is the opposite - but I am using adv./ adj. here, indeed... If speaking means producing words, then being quiet should be the or an opposite at least (_zwijgen _in Dutch). here I am not using adjectives, only perhaps nouns.


----------



## LilianaB

Hi. So, do you mean that _stroll_, for example, would be the opposite of _run_? I am not sure if I subscribe to the theory of verbs opposites. _Speaking_ means _to utter words (aloud)_. One can also speak to oneself, sort of, (mentally create words) when being quiet.


----------



## ThomasK

I am no longer sure of anything, Liliana. I had just been wondering about things, did not wish to develop a theory. I'd just say that speaking to oneself is only a metaphor, not to be interpreted literally. 

BTW, I had two other things I wanted to add to #42, viz.: 
- @both: this hot/ warm issue is interesting. Any verb seems to refer to the noun, or in this case the adj., I suppose. That might corroborate your thesis. 

- But not all ... (words?) have opposites, I suppose. Like existing. I'd love to have a verb for 'not to exist', but I think that is a world we can hardly refer to, as it is considered non-existent.


----------



## e2-e4 X

I see no problem with referring to non-existent things. First, we think of them, possibly use a word for them, and only then classify them as non-existent. Non-existence is just one of many attributes that we could assign to the things that we have in our minds, why should we treat it as something very special?


----------



## ThomasK

Can we have things in our minds that do not exist??? Good heavens, shall we now have to discuss what we mean by 'exist'??? ;-) I'd say they must be to think of them. I also thought: I love creativity, but can I really invent, create, what does not _exist_? It looks like that but are those the right terms ??? Aaarrrhhhh !


----------



## e2-e4 X

The aeroplane didn't exist before a man invented one, but he surely was able to think of it and say: "it doesn't exist for now, nor do I know whether it will exist in the future, but I'll try to make it exist, and maybe I'll succeed".


----------



## JuanEscritor

e2-e4 X said:


> Well, I think one word can have many opposites in a language. I can't understand why 'want' might be an opposite for 'have', because wanting doesn't even contradict having.


Are you sure?

Wiktionary entry for _want_:

want (_third-person singular simple present_ wants, _present participle_ wanting, _simple past and past participle_ wanted)


(transitive) To wish for or to desire (something). [from 18th c.] _What do you want to eat?__I want you to leave.__I never wanted to go back to live with my mother.__I want to be an astronaut when I'm older__I don't want him to marry Gloria, I want him to marry me!__What do you want from me?__Do you want anything from the shops?_ 
(intransitive, now dated) To be lacking, not to exist. [from 13th c.] _There was something wanting in the play._ 
(transitive) To lack, not to have (something). [from 13th c.]  [quotations ▼] 
(transitive, colloquially with verbal noun as object) To be in need of; to require (something). [from 15th c.] _That chair wants fixing._ 
​​


> I use two criteria:
> 1) two opposites contradict each other: the more they do so, the better; *
> 2) an opposite adds as little as possible to the contradition of the other word's meaning.
> According to these criteria, the perfect opposites are "good/not good"  and "bad/not bad", and a less exact pair of opposites is "bad/good".


First, your criteria are contradictory.

Second, your examples are opposites of different types, not different degrees--it's not 'more exact' and 'less exact'; it's one type and another type.  A word and its rule-formed negation are opposites by logical necessity; 'lexical opposites' are opposites by way of agreed-upon meaning (we can't predict a lexical opposite; the opposition is semantic and not morphological/syntactic).

Third, your criteria fail to account for speaker intuition.  I think most people would agree that _good_ and _bad_ are in greater opposition to one another than _good_ and _not good_.  

But this thread isn't about these kinds of opposition.  It's about comparing opposite/negation pairs such as _kind_/_not kind_ and _kind_/_unkind_.  The question is whether there are languages that only allow the former kind of formations but not the latter--at least if I'm understanding the question right--and what affect this might have on the worldview of speakers of such languages.

It is my position that, at least in English, these are two distinct processes that cannot be compared.

JE


----------



## e2-e4 X

JuanEscritor said:


> Are you sure?


Thanks.


> First, your criteria are contradictory.


Please explain.


> Third, your criteria fail to account for speaker intuition.  I think most people would agree that _good_ and _bad_ are in greater opposition to one another than _good_ and _not good_.


At least, they state that _good/bad_ are more exact opposites than _valuable/bad_, which is what I wanted to get. The deviation from speaker's intuition that you mention is the only one.


----------



## myšlenka

It seems that we have wandered off topic.

ThomasK asks what alternatives there are for morphological negation in verbs and then the question is: what does negation really mean?

 The 'classical' negation is sentential negation and all languages have some way to express this: verbal or nominal affixes, free morphemes etc. Whatever the strategy is, they all correspond to "not".

 English makes use of “not” in combination with some syntactic changes to express sentential negation, but in some cases the verb in question has something that looks like a negative verbal prefix which is in fact something else: dis-, un-. We have already seen that discover and undo are not really negated. The meaning of discover is radically different from cover so ThomasK’s starting point that Finnish ignores a semantic link that is preserved in English because of etymology does not hold.

 If negation in this case refers to the reverse action in a sense, then we have some alternatives. English can use:
The affix un-: undo, undress, untie. 
Particles and prepositions: go in/go out, turn on/turn off
Different lexical items: wake up/fall asleep, open/close

I have yet to see examples of a language that extensively uses affixes to revert the meaning of the verbs such that _unrun_ means "the reverse action of running", _uneat_ means "the reverse action of eating" etc. I don’t believe such a language exists because I cannot comprehend what kind of actions these negative verb forms would refer to which would be different from regular sentential negation. If such a language doesn’t exist, then this discussion is a mere philosophical debate about the worldview of speakers of a hypothetical language.


----------



## LilianaB

Well, I think the prefix _un_- in your examples just indictes direction, not negation. (_to draw back the action_ -- sort off). I think it has a very similar function as some prefixes in Baltic and Salvic languages.(_to put on_ -- _to put off_).


----------



## JuanEscritor

myšlenka said:


> I have yet to see examples of a language that extensively uses affixes to revert the meaning of the verbs such that _unrun_ means "the reverse action of running", _uneat_ means "the reverse action of eating" etc. I don’t believe such a language exists because I cannot comprehend what kind of actions these negative verb forms would refer to which would be different from regular sentential negation.


This is a good point.  Languages using both inflectional-syntactic methods of negation and derivational methods of 'negation' use both because each one creates different meanings.  In every case, the inflectional-syntactic methods are more productive (perfectly so, in fact) than the derivational methods--they also create distinct meanings and are thus not the same process.

But in this thread there has been so much confounding of these two things (along with other things) that it is really impossible to figure out how to answer any of the questions that are being asked aside from simply pointing out the confusion present in the assumptions.  Which is why I have restricted my contributions to doing just that.

JE


----------



## ThomasK

Reverse/ negation: OK, interesting point, it seems to be true that discovering is rather like reversing the action. That does seem like a precision, for sure, but I still wonder whether this is not a terminological issue. _(The result of dis-covering is negative in the sense that any lid/... covering something has been taken away, from an etymological point of view)
_
I would not use 'ignore' in this case, because I did not mean that as a value judgment. It was a different way of looking at things, so I thought, a different, another interpretation of one reality. _(Just look at crossing the street at the AL section: the different translations show that the way the languages describe that action is different in the sense that they use a different metaphor) 
_
The languages that create things like 'unrun', 'uneat' will be inexistent, I think, because there is no reality corresponding to that (vomiting is not a real reversal... ;-)). But that the mechanism does not work here or in other cases, might therefore have to do with the nature of the action, not the grammar, I think. The derivational and the inflection-syntactic methods might refer to/ describe different kinds of realities. 

All this has to do with the impact of metaphors, as well, I think: does an etymological metaphor still influence our way of thinking (Lakoff/ Johnson, _Living By Metaphors_)... 

I apologize for any confusion I might have created. Don't go into these notes if you feel I am misunderstanding your points.


----------



## LilianaB

I think to really determine the use and function of the above mentioned prefixes in English, you would have to go back to Latin -- to find out exactly how they ended up in English and what their original function was.


----------



## NorwegianNYC

The inherent problem in this topic is that we are dealing with VERBS. If we reach back to our elementary school days, we were taught (and this is to put it in a simple fashion) that verbs were "action" or "doing"-words. Therein lies the problem. Is the negation of a verb (a) the opposite on the action; (b) the reversal of the action; (c) the elimination of the action or (d) the preclusion of the action? No matter what set of verbs we enter into this 'matrix' we will get a different answer.


----------



## JuanEscritor

LilianaB said:


> I think to really determine the use and function of the above mentioned prefixes in English, you would have to go back to Latin -- to find out exactly how they ended up in English and what their original function was.


Absolutely not.  Etymological information is never relevant in determining present uses/meanings/functions of words because the _history _of a word is by definition _not _its present.

JE


----------



## ThomasK

Might depend on whether the word in its present form can still be analysed, I think.


----------



## e2-e4 X

NorwegianNYC said:


> Therein lies the problem. Is the negation of a verb (a) the opposite on the action; (b) the reversal of the action; (c) the elimination of the action or (d) the preclusion of the action? No matter what set of verbs we enter into this 'matrix' we will get a different answer.


In other words, the question is what do we negate, what do we find an opposite for. Four things (and more) are inherent to [almost] any action: a) the nature of the action; b) the direction of the action; c) the presence of the action; d) the intent on the action. Each of these things can have opposites, and also, the c) point usually has only two values (although not always), so it often can be negated in a 'boolean' way. Interesting!


----------



## LilianaB

JuanEscritor said:


> Absolutely not.  Etymological information is never relevant in determining present uses/meanings/functions of words because the _history _of a word is by definition _not _its present.
> 
> JE



I absolutely think that it might be beneficial for this discussion to analyze the origin of such prefixes and their original function. It does not mean that their function must be exactly the same as their original function. Some of the words that contain the Latin prefixes could have been borrowed as already created Latin words. The prefix _un_ in English adjectives may correspond to certain other Germnaic prefixes such as _o_ in Swedish. It corresponds to German _un_ and Latin _in_. It appears in some verbs as well, but its negative aspect is less clear, in the case of verbs (in English), in my opinion.


----------



## ThomasK

@JE: the etymology of a word may not work at all, I agree. But - in that I folllow Liliana - in some cases like _ontnemen/ entnehmen/ take away _the prefix does mean something that native speakers understand (this is not straight etymology of course, more like derivation, but still...). Calling your partners in dialogue 'opponents' does have an impact on how you view the dialogue. The preifxes in Dutch (and German) are still very productive: _uit-twitteren _(out - to twitter until you have no more inspiration). 

@E2 : interesting analysis, but I'd like to hear more about (c)!


----------



## e2-e4 X

Well, what I mean is that usually we evaluate presence only in accordance with some reality that is defined by the context (by default, it is the 'real reality'). So, only two values are possible: the action is either present or not. But if we consider other realities, for example: the reality of all imaginary things, the reality of all things that can never happen, the reality of all things that are likely to happen, or should happen, or must happen, the reality of all things that can be seen by John Doe, or the reality of all things that can be touched by the local tribal chief; – then the c) point will have many more values, just like a), b), and d), that is, the action can be present in any or all of these or of other realities, it can _exist_ in any of them.

I'm just inventing logical possibilities, I don't know if they're actually realized in any existing language.


----------



## JuanEscritor

ThomasK said:


> @JE: the etymology of a word may not work at all, I agree. But - in that I folllow Liliana - in some cases like _ontnemen/ entnehmen/ take away _the prefix does mean something that native speakers understand (this is not straight etymology of course, more like derivation, but still...).


It doesn't sound like etymology at all.  There is no need to reference the history of a morpheme when determining its meaning/function.  Etymology can help us understand _why_ things are the way they are, but it cannot tell us _what_ those ways are today--only synchronic analysis can faithfully do this. 



> Calling your partners in dialogue 'opponents' does have an impact on how you view the dialogue.


Or, more likely, it simply reveals how you already view the dialogue.  What is more likely: That words just fall out of people's mouths and they use these words to formulate thoughts; or that the thoughts are formulated first and then the words to express those thoughts follow?



> The preifxes in Dutch (and German) are still very productive: _uit-twitteren _(out - to twitter until you have no more inspiration).


English also has a robust and healthy system of productive affixation, as do many other languages.  What is the point you are trying to get at with this, though?

JE


----------



## JuanEscritor

LilianaB said:


> I absolutely think that it might be beneficial for this discussion to analyze the origin of such prefixes and their original function. It does not mean that their function must be exactly the same as their original function. Some of the words that contain the Latin prefixes could have been borrowed as already created Latin words. The prefix _un_ in English adjectives may correspond to certain other Germnaic prefixes such as _o_ in Swedish. It corresponds to German _un_ and Latin _in_. It appears in some verbs as well, but its negative aspect is less clear, in the case of verbs (in English), in my opinion.


But how will any of this answer the questions presented in the OP?

A language either has morphological ways to express the opposite/negative/'undoing' of a verb or it doesn't.  

JE


----------



## ThomasK

JuanEscritor said:


> It doesn't sound like etymology at all. There is no need to reference the history of a morpheme when determining its meaning/function. Etymology can help us understand _why_ things are the way they are, but it cannot tell us _what_ those ways are today--only synchronic analysis can faithfully do this.
> 
> Or, more likely, it simply reveals how you already view the dialogue. What is more likely: That words just fall out of people's mouths and they use these words to formulate thoughts; or that the thoughts are formulated first and then the words to express those thoughts follow?
> 
> English also has a robust and healthy system of productive affixation, as do many other languages. What is the point you are trying to get at with this, though?
> 
> JE


It all has to do with the same thing in my view: there are some 'underlying' meanings involved and making themselves felt, even unawares, when we use words. The _ont_-(E _dis_-, _off_) words in Dutch have this kind of negative ring, I think, even when we don't realize it. I think there are other words based on some 'underlying' metaphor, which cause us to see things in a particular mindset, or something (which is in part what Lakoff/ Johnson hint at, I believe). That was what my question was based upon: do these 'negatively loaded' prefixes have an impact on how we see this particular act??? 

So somehow, I think, our language is like the house we live in, not just a tool. And we have some freedom in that house, but somehow our thoughts are being shaped/ defined/ limited by those words, I think, the way our tools might define and narrow our view on the things we manipulate (I think that is in part also what Marshal Mc Luhan hints in _Understanding Media_), and thus how we manipulate them. I suppose that is language psychology - and I don't know much about that, alas, but I think it is interesting to investigate that. Of course this is also a bit like the chicken and the egg story.


----------



## JuanEscritor

ThomasK said:


> It all has to do with the same thing in my view: there are some 'underlying' meanings involved and making themselves felt, even unawares, when we use words. The _ont_-(E _dis_-, _off_) words in Dutch have this kind of negative ring, I think, even when we don't realize it. I think there are other words based on some 'underlying' metaphor, which cause us to see things in a particular mindset, or something (which is in part what Lakoff/ Johnson hint at, I believe).


Then could you provide some evidence in support of this view?



> So somehow, I think, our language is like the house we live in, not just a tool. And we have some freedom in that house, but somehow our thoughts are being shaped/ defined/ limited by those words, I think, the way our tools might define and narrow our view on the things we manipulate (I think that is in part also what Marshal Mc Luhan hints in _Understanding Media_), and thus how we manipulate them.


Where is your support for this analogy?



> Of course this is also a bit like the chicken and the egg story.


Yes of course; in the sense that the undefined nature of your question makes it difficult to know where to start in trying to answer it.

JE


----------



## myšlenka

ThomasK said:


> It all has to do with the same thing in my view: there are some 'underlying' meanings involved and making themselves felt, even unawares, when we use words. The _ont_-(E _dis_-, _off_) words in Dutch have this kind of negative ring, I think, even when we don't realize it. I think there are other words based on some 'underlying' metaphor, which cause us to see things in a particular mindset, or something (which is in part what Lakoff/ Johnson hint at, I believe). That was what my question was based upon: do these 'negatively loaded' prefixes have an impact on how we see this particular act???


 Lakoff and Johnson are not talking about underlying metaphors with respect to specific prefixes. They are merely claiming that metaphors are used to talk about abstract concepts.



ThomasK said:


> So somehow, I think, our language is like the house we live in, not just a tool. And we have some freedom in that house, but somehow our thoughts are being shaped/ defined/ limited by those words, I think, the way our tools might define and narrow our view on the things we manipulate (I think that is in part also what Marshal Mc Luhan hints in _Understanding Media_), and thus how we manipulate them. I suppose that is language psychology - and I don't know much about that, alas, but I think it is interesting to investigate that. Of course this is also a bit like the chicken and the egg story.


This is also known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. It is an interesting hypothesis, but I have not seen much evidence that supports it.


----------



## ThomasK

Well, I think prefixes express abstract concepts/relations, whereas they originally referred to physical relations. And as for Sapir-Whorf: indeed, has been much criticized indeed, but I believe it makes some sense - but I am trying to find out how much... Using different metaphors, helps to view reality in some other way, I think, though it is not magic of course.


----------



## myšlenka

Well, unless you have come up with a good way of measuring different wordviews, it's still just theorizing.


----------



## JuanEscritor

ThomasK said:


> Well, I think prefixes express abstract concepts/relations, whereas they originally referred to physical relations. And as for Sapir-Whorf: indeed, has been much criticized indeed, but I believe it makes some sense - but I am trying to find out how much... Using different metaphors, helps to view reality in some other way, I think, though it is not magic of course.


I think it has become clear that you are advocating a position as opposed to merely asking a question.  

So in the interest of everyone, I'd like to respectfully request that you plainly state your position and present some evidence for it.  This thread has gone already into its fourth page of pseudo-science and wishy-washy philosophy and no one is any closer to understanding your position or putting a solid answer to your 'question' than when the OP was posted.

It would be most appreciated if we could figure out where it is you stand, where you're coming from, and what specific help you want from us so that our time posting could be most productive.

Will you kindly honor this request?

JE


----------



## ThomasK

I have first of all asked a question - about the negative verb prefixes. That triggered a hypothesis which I formulated as a question: could the absence or presence have an effect on or result from a worldview? Is that a position? It is a hypothesis, and where possible I try to substantiate that hypothesis - but it is very fruitful to read about counterarguments. 

So then the work began of fine-tuning my question and the underlying hypothesis. That was an interesting exchange, I think, about negation and about the meaning/ effect of the prefixes. It has made some things clearer, to other people as well. 

Ultimately, you could say, I wonder about what relation there can be between words and worldview. That is what Lakoff/ Johnson wrote about and I thought there might be some link. But I do not want help, I just want some extra light, e.g., some help in pinpointing things. That is why fora are so extremely interesting. 

And if none answers anymore, then this thread will bleed to death!


----------



## LilianaB

ThomasK said:


> It all has to do with the same thing in my view: there are some 'underlying' meanings involved and making themselves felt, even unawares, when we use words. The _ont_-(E _dis_-, _off_) words in Dutch have this kind of negative ring, I think, even when we don't realize it. I think there are other words based on some 'underlying' metaphor, which cause us to see things in a particular mindset, or something (which is in part what Lakoff/ Johnson hint at, I believe). That was what my question was based upon: do these 'negatively loaded' prefixes have an impact on how we see this particular act???
> 
> So somehow, I think, our language is like the house we live in, not just a tool. And we have some freedom in that house, but somehow our thoughts are being shaped/ defined/ limited by those words, I think, the way our tools might define and narrow our view on the things we manipulate (I think that is in part also what Marshal Mc Luhan hints in _Understanding Media_), and thus how we manipulate them. I suppose that is language psychology - and I don't know much about that, alas, but I think it is interesting to investigate that. Of course this is also a bit like the chicken and the egg story.



I think our experience of the reality shapes our language. This is why some nations living in areas almost constantly covered with some kind of snow have many names for snow -- just as an example. There are other factors as well: perhaps things handed over from generation to generation, stored on our collective memory.  

As to the etymology of certain prefixes, I think it is important to find out their origin, if we want to talk about their modern function.


----------



## ThomasK

LilianaB said:


> I think our experience of the reality shapes our language. This is why some nations living in areas almost constantly covered with some kind of snow have many names for snow -- just as an example. There are other factors as well: perhaps things handed over from generation to generation, stored on our collective memory.
> .


The least we can say is that there is an interaction. However, the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis seemed ill-founded, so I read, as the number of words for 'snow' appeared limited. I do know that certain metaphors impair our view on reality. Economy for example is often compared to a body, and thus all measures aim at 'health',but that is only a metaphor, and self-justifying (if that is the correct term, not just reality. I am just reading Tomáš Sedláček, and he points out that economy is not science.


----------



## Hulalessar

ThomasK said:


> I have first of all asked a question - about the negative verb prefixes. That triggered a hypothesis which I formulated as a question: could the absence or presence have an effect on or result from a worldview? Is that a position? It is a hypothesis, and where possible I try to substantiate that hypothesis - but it is very fruitful to read about counterarguments.
> 
> So then the work began of fine-tuning my question and the underlying hypothesis. That was an interesting exchange, I think, about negation and about the meaning/ effect of the prefixes. It has made some things clearer, to other people as well.
> 
> Ultimately, you could say, I wonder about what relation there can be between words and worldview. That is what Lakoff/ Johnson wrote about and I thought there might be some link. But I do not want help, I just want some extra light, e.g., some help in pinpointing things. That is why fora are so extremely interesting.
> 
> And if none answers anymore, then this thread will bleed to death!



As suggested above, you are really asking if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true in respect of a narrow point. Perhaps the way to address it is to ask this question: If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true are there are concepts so fundamental that they cannot possibly be subject to it. It may be possible to argue that you cannot have any idea of "good" and "bad" if your language does not have the words "good" and "bad". It is further possible to argue that even if you have the words "good" and "bad" that does not have to mean that there is in fact "good" and "bad". However, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to argue that you can have the _idea_ of "good" without at the same time having the _idea_ of "bad"; in the words of the _Tao Te Ching_, they arise mutually. Good = not-bad and bad = not-good. If the opposition exists for the speakers of a given language then it exists and I cannot see that the morphology of the language can have any relevance.


----------



## myšlenka

ThomasK said:


> I have first of all asked a question - about the negative verb prefixes. That triggered a hypothesis which I formulated as a question: could the absence or presence have an effect on or result from a worldview? Is that a position? It is a hypothesis, and where possible I try to substantiate that hypothesis - but it is very fruitful to read about counterarguments.


There _are_ languages with negative verb prefixes: Slavic _nie-_/_ne_- (or similar) and Farsi _næ_- where the negation is attached to the verb. It's their way of expressing a Boolean type of negation. I find it hard to believe that this represents a different worldview. However, you seem to ask for something different which involves meaning change as well (like _discover_ vs _cover_). With this in mind, you seem to wonder why verbs with different meanings are not related to each other.



ThomasK said:


> So then the work began of fine-tuning my question and the underlying hypothesis. That was an interesting exchange, I think, about negation and about the meaning/ effect of the prefixes. It has made some things clearer, to other people as well.


Does the prefix _dis_- have the same meaning in _disagree, __disappoint_ and in _discover_? Semantics are compositional, but not always.



ThomasK said:


> Ultimately, you could say, I wonder about what relation there can be between words and worldview. That is what Lakoff/ Johnson wrote about and I thought there might be some link. But I do not want help, I just want some extra light, e.g., some help in pinpointing things. That is why fora are so extremely interesting.


   Lakoff and Johnson wrote about how we understand abstract concepts in terms of concrete ones, e.g. love is a path, time is a path, argument is war etc. I don't see how this makes a parallell to what you're asking for. Your position reminds me more about urban legends like the number of words for snow in the Inuit languages.


----------



## e2-e4 X

myšlenka said:


> Does the prefix _dis_- have the same meaning in _disagree, __disappoint_ and in _discover_? Semantics are compositional, but not always.


It does, only with different additions in each case.
1. When you disagree with someone, it means you do not agree with him, you reject the way of agreeing with him and choose a different way;
2. When something is discovered, it means it can be seen by everybody, someone decided the thing shouldn't be _covered_ (metaphorically) and chose a different way for its existence;
3. Even though the word 'appoint' means a quite different thing, in the word 'disappoint' the prefix is felt as though somebody rejected your way of doing and possibly made you look at a different way that you probably cannot go or do not feel you want to go.

In other words, 'dis-' in all three cases referes to rejecting some way of doing and then possibly looking for a different way.


Hulalessar said:


> Good = not-bad and bad = not-good.


Just a note… 'Good => not bad', and 'bad => not good', indeed ('=>' means 'therefore'); but it's not true that 'not bad => good' or 'not good => bad'. Examples: that galaxy is neither good nor bad; that book is neither good nor bad.


----------



## LilianaB

Hulalessar said:


> As suggested above, you are really asking if the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true in respect of a narrow point. Perhaps the way to address it is to ask this question: If the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is true are there are concepts so fundamental that they cannot possibly be subject to it. It may be possible to argue that you cannot have any idea of "good" and "bad" if your language does not have the words "good" and "bad". It is further possible to argue that even if you have the words "good" and "bad" that does not have to mean that there is in fact "good" and "bad". However, it seems difficult, if not impossible, to argue that you can have the _idea_ of "good" without at the same time having the _idea_ of "bad"; in the words of the _Tao Te Ching_, they arise mutually. Good = not-bad and bad = not-good. If the opposition exists for the speakers of a given language then it exists and I cannot see that the morphology of the language can have any relevance.



A person living in an idyllic world -- a sort of stereotypical heaven, without death, sorrow and hunger, may have no concept or word for _bad_. This is all still very theoretical.


----------



## Hulalessar

e2-e4 X said:


> Just a note… 'Good => not bad', and 'bad => not good', indeed ('=>' means 'therefore'); but it's not true that 'not bad => good' or 'not good => bad'. Examples: that galaxy is neither good nor bad; that book is neither good nor bad.



I see your point. However, what I want to emphasise is that the notion of "good" cannot exist without the equal and opposite notion of "bad". Using those words but going into Russian, _khorosho_ (good) has the antonyms _plokho_ and _*nye*khorosho_ (bad). Morphologically, the opposition _khorosho_ v _*nye*khorosho_ is achieved by the prefix -_nye_, but the opposition _khorosho_ v _plokho_ involves two unrelated words.

The question posed seems to be this: Do the speakers of a language which exclusively or predominantly uses the _khorosho_ v _*nye*khorosho_ model have a different world view to those who speak a language which exclusively or predominantly uses the _khorosho_ v _plokho_ model? I think the answer is "no" because the notion of opposites* can be said to precede and/or not depend on language. In any event I would be surprised if there is a language with a complete absence of antonyms.

*At a deeper philosophical level one can of course ask if opposites have any real existence, but for most of us most of the time in our everyday dealings we use language that employs antonyms - even the most rigorous of philosophers distinguishes between a good lunch and a bad lunch.


----------



## JuanEscritor

_*sigh*_

I tried.  Goodbye folks.  Enjoy your chat.


----------



## aruniyan

Thomas,

These negetive verb prefixes for example dis, de etc...should be  once individual meaningful sounds, that got lost long back.. I think  this prefix de/dis is related with or atleast similar in sound to  _Thee_ in Tamil that means  fire/Bad for ex... _thee(fire), theemai(bad), theer(finished) etc._.. which is available in Indo European Devil,Demon,dearth etc  and  later used as prefixes to mean something to keep away from/apart.

Further Tamil do has this suffix _aa_(long a) for negative verbs.. for example..
_mara_(forget)
_maravaa_(not to forget),


----------



## ThomasK

myšlenka said:


> Does the prefix _dis_- have the same meaning in _disagree, __disappoint_ and in _discover_? Semantics are compositional, but not always.


Well, I think 'baiscally' yes, but I must agree that the meanings have developed in different/ divergent ways. 



myšlenka said:


> Lakoff and Johnson wrote about how we understand abstract concepts in terms of concrete ones, e.g. love is a path, time is a path, argument is war etc. I don't see how this makes a parallell to what you're asking for. Your position reminds me more about urban legends like the number of words for snow in the Inuit languages.


In the sense that 'dis' was once concrete, I believe (like 'apart'). The same with 'off'/ Dutch 'af-' I suppose: away from, but downwards. That helps learners to decipher new words - if they have some imagination, agreed. 

But my 'position' is only a view, and the S/W hypothesis might refer to something, though it was not and has not been well substantiated. I think it is more than an 'urban [or a rural ;-)] legend', but I admit it has not been shown how it could make perfect sense.


----------



## ThomasK

aruniyan said:


> Thomas,
> 
> These negetive verb prefixes for example dis, de etc...should be once individual meaningful sounds, that got lost long back.. I think this prefix de/dis is related with or atleast similar in sound to _Thee_ in Tamil that means fire/Bad for ex... _thee(fire), theemai(bad), theer(finished) etc._.. which is available in Indo European Devil,Demon,dearth etc and later used as prefixes to mean something to keep away from/apart.
> 
> Further Tamil do has this suffix _aa_(long a) for negative verbs.. for example..
> _mara_(forget)
> _maravaa_(not to forget),


I can't look it up now, but is Tamil related with Sanskrit? What is the precise meaning of 'maravaa'? Could you make the difference clear by means of some sentences?


----------



## e2-e4 X

Hulalessar said:


> I see your point. However, what I want to emphasise is that the notion of "good" cannot exist without the equal and opposite notion of "bad". Using those words but going into Russian, _khorosho_ (good) has the antonyms _plokho_ and _*nye*khorosho_ (bad). Morphologically, the opposition _khorosho_ v _*nye*khorosho_ is achieved by the prefix -_nye_, but the opposition _khorosho_ v _plokho_ involves two unrelated words.


Just to add a fact: in Russian, "нехорошо" ("niekhorosho") does indeed mean "bad", but the very idea of this word is that you politely avoid mentioning that something is bad and instead just say it's not good. There is also the word "неплохо" that is an antonym of "плохо" ("plokho"), and its idea is similar: you avoid saying something is good and only say it's not bad because of superstition or like. Both words are, so to say, "instead-words": they stand for other words that the speaker doesn't want to say for some reason.


----------



## LilianaB

ThomasK said:


> I can't look it up now, but is Tamil related with Sanskrit? What is the precise meaning of 'maravaa'? Could you make the difference clear by means of some sentences?



I am not an expert on Tamil. but I think Tamil has only affixes -- no prefixes, so I think the _aa_ is just a negating affix. (like _ne_ in Lithuanian, which is a prefix, but has a similar function). Tamil is not closely related to Sanskrit. It is a Dravidian language, mostly from Southern India and Sri Lanka.


----------



## ThomasK

I see, thanks. I am looking forward to seeing how the negative verb can be used.


----------



## 涼宮

ThomasK said:


> I was looking up 'to discover' and 'to cover' in Finnish. Both are simply two distinct words, so it seems to me, and I think there is no morphological negation of verbs in some languages.&nbsp;yet, to me as a westerner full of illusions, it seems so strange not to be able to do that (retaining the link with the active 'positive' (?) word --- or concept.
> 
> So: what alternatives are there? And: could that imply a different worldview?



I tried to think of something and did some research, but indeed Japanese doesn't have something that allows us to negate a verb like dis- or un- do, there is no way to make the opposite of a verb. All verbs and their opposites are separate verbs. There is a negative prefix 不 _fu_, but it's used for adjectives and nouns, not verbs.


----------



## arielipi

The alternatives is to simply say not doing the action, or having a negated action word. Hebrew can apply both.


----------

