From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!tfs.com!tfs.com!ecsd Wed Sep 16 21:23:10 EDT 1992
Article 6892 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.bio:3898 sci.skeptic:19915 soc.men:4948 soc.women:4647 comp.ai.philosophy:6892
Newsgroups: sci.bio,sci.skeptic,soc.men,soc.women,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!agate!tfs.com!tfs.com!ecsd
>From: ecsd@tfs.com (Eric C. S. Dynamic)
Subject: Re: missing verbs
Message-ID: <1992Sep12.145021.10036@tfs.com>
Organization: TFS
References: <1992Sep9.230021.5182@news.media.mit.edu> <BILL.92Sep9232609@ca3.nsma.arizona.edu> <1992Sep11.120124.15227@techbook.com>
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 1992 14:50:21 GMT
Lines: 31

szabo@techbook.com (Nick Szabo) writes:
>
>Dr. Minsky has pointed out a curious assymetry in the English language,
>but does any language _not_ have such an assymetry?
>
>bill@nsma.arizona.edu (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>
>>Anyway, English (and other languages) are full of curious asymmetries.
>>For example, it's okay to say "The bicycle is next to the house", but
>>it's not okay to say "The house is next to the bicycle", though
>>logically they ought to mean the same thing.
>
>"Is" here seems to carry far more than an Aristolean logic semantics;
>in particular it seems to imply an action -- one would park a bicycle
>next to the house, but not vice versa.

I may have missed the full original context, but why is the asymmetry
curious? Houses are presumed to be stationary objects, and much larger
than bicycles.

The bike is next to the car
The car is next to the bike

The bike is next to the elephant
The elephant is next to the bike

The bike is next to the monument
The monument is next to the bike

I don't know, but I actually 'feel' the asymmetry changing by weight
and kind of the one object vs. the other (the bike).


