trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
Natural Semantic Metalanguage provides a specific explication for left
the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
0 sources for · 1 against
AS REPORTEDno primary record reached; this is what the reporting says

Retrieved forum discussion indicates that researchers have not provided a full NSM explication for the concept of left.

Evidence against · 1
cited by 0
# NSM explication for 'left'? Tags: semantics, natural-semantic-metalanguage - Score: 5 - Views: 332 - Answers: 1 - Answered: yes - Asked by: extremeaxe5 (378 rep) - Asked: 2018-11-03 - Site: linguistics ## Question How would the NSM explicate the word 'left'? As in, 'the table is to my left'. I just cannot think of any way to do it using the current 65 primes. ## Answers ### Answer by curiousdannii (score: 3) Although I've seen several NSM researchers discuss the concepts of "left" and "right" in relation to the semantic prime SIDE, I haven't seen any give a full explication for them. I don't think it's really that complex though, so I'll give it a go. I'll use a few semantic molecules; you can see how "hands" can be defined using primes in "Natural Semantic Metalanguage: The state of the art" by Goddard, page 24. To start, I'll define left and right hands using three prominent actions: right hand = (a) someone can use one hand to write   many people use this hand   a few people use the other hand (b) someone can use one hand to pick up a small thing   many people use this hand   a few people use the other hand (c) someone can use one hand to eat   many people
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:refuted:single_source:for=0+0p:against=1+0p | v55:sufficiency

Everything we examined (1)
This check searched the claim as stated. It did not run a separate search for evidence against it.
  1. NSM explication for 'left'? - Linguistics Stack Exchangereferenceno side taken
The paper trail · every fact has a biography
first checked05 Aug 2026
judged → INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE · 005 Aug 2026
held for human review08 Aug 2026
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt