Re: [topicmaps-comment] multilingual thesaurus - language,scope,and topic naming constraint

["Steven R. Newcomb" <srn@coolheads.com>]

Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> writes:

> [A particular subject may be] forged in
> some language/culture context, and has not to be
> enforced as a relevant subject in any other
> languages/cultures willy-nilly.  That is linguistic
> imperialism that TM approach should try to fight
> back, and not contribute to enforce. This goes with
> my absolute conviction that there are no subjects
> preexisting to language, out there waiting to be
> named, but that subjects emerge from linguistic
> activity, and therefore are essentially linked to
> some linguistic/cultural context.

Although I tend to agree with Jan's position more than
with Bernard's, Bernard's above remark makes me happy.
It reminds me that the TM paradigm doesn't rule out any
world view.  Bernard and I can both create topic maps
that may be mutually disgusting.  Our topic maps can
even be merged in a useful way, and without
compromising our distinctly different world views.  In
fact, Bernard and I could both use the results of the
merge to demonstrate exactly why the other's world view
is wrong-headed.  Bernard could use it to say, "See,
Steve's world-view erases important semantic and
cultural distinctions, which may lead to
misunderstandings and wars."  But I, too, can say,
"See, Bernard's world-view prohibits what little
cross-cultural communication might otherwise be
supportable by means of his topic map; we need to do
business between different cultures if we're going to
prevent misunderstandings and wars."

"Linguistic imperialism" is certainly a catchy phrase.

-- Steve

Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
srn@coolheads.com

voice: +1 972 359 8160
fax:   +1 972 359 0270

1527 Northaven Drive
Allen, Texas 75002-1648 USA