Welcome to American Issues. Take one. I'm Tim Apachele, your host. And today's title is the many roads lead to Trump's indictment. We've had a recent development that occurred yesterday and fairly significant in my opinion. And that was the conviction of the Oath Keepers founder, Stuart Rhodes, and one of his top leaders in Florida, Kelly Miggs. They were convicted on seditious conspiracy, which is not an easy charge to convict someone on. You almost have to get it into the state of mind of the defendant and prove that the state of mind was relevant enough that it led to a conspiracy of sedition. And they were convicted on that, and which leads to a, I believe a maximum 20 years if the judge so chooses on that term. So who also was convicted was Kenneth Harrelson, Jessica Watkins, and Thomas Codwell for obstruction of an official proceeding, which also results in a maximum sentence of 20 years. So I would like to talk about this and specifically how it interacts with the many things that Ari Melber, who put together a special on the many things that led to Trump's trying to get back into office, which led to the January 6th Capitol attack, they weren't random. They were coordinated. They were interconnected. And so that's the topic of the show. And I'd like to introduce my guests. Today we have my co-host, Jay Fidel, our esteemed special guest, Jeffrey Portnoy, and our other esteemed special guest, Chuck Crumpton. Good morning. Morning, Jim. Jeff, Jay. Jay, with this recent conviction of the two, well, basically the founder of the Oath Keepers, does this encourage the DOJ to pursue an indictment on Trump along the same path?  Well, timid, gee, that the word was invented for them. But I used it. Thank you. I think it really helps them because, you know, to have a conspiracy, you have to have a number of people. And to say that the only conspirators, you know, identify this trial where the ones in the trial is ridiculous because they all said they were taking instructions from Trump. So, you know, even a slow-witted observer would say, gee, whiz, Trump has got to be involved as a conspirator, too. I really don't know why we don't have an indictment for Trump yet. Well, I think there should be one. And I think there's enough evidence out there. And we'll talk later in the show about the analysis of Ari Melber, because Melber has clearly shown that all of this is connected and it all points to Trump and it all proves up his intention to bring down the government. So, yes, I think this is an important development. And even if we don't get it, then surely the Department of Justice should get it. They must already know that all the signs are pointing to Trump and this conviction is pointing to Trump. We already mentioned me because you're talking about slow-witted. So, I think I'll respond. I don't agree at all. I don't think there's a chance in heck that Trump gets indicted. I think all of this media speculation is nothing more than that. There's no direct evidence to date, even with the January 6th Committee, that Trump in any way specifically worked behind the scenes to have these people not go to the Capitol, but break into the Capitol. The results yesterday are fascinating. I don't think there's been a sedition trial since World War I. That's the first thing that I think is extraordinary. But on the other hand, the Justice Department didn't bat 1,000 yesterday. There were multiple acquittals of multiple defendants on multiple counts. Now, they did get the two primary oathkeepers people on the properly the most important charge, which is sedition. But it's a mixed bag. That jury did not completely follow the Justice Department. There are frankly more acquittals than there are convictions if you count up the number of acquittals. So, I guess I'm part of the dim-witted or a slow-witted or whatever it is. Slow-witted, Jeff. So, I am in the camp that says, I think the Justice Department would be doing Trump a favor if they indict him. Because I think that is gonna galvanize his 30% supporters. And if he ever gets acquitted, forget what people are gonna say in his group about the government. I think the Justice Department is not gonna indict him unless they are convinced, and I mean convinced, that they can sustain the burden of proof and get him convicted. And I think it's not happening. But, Jeff, I have a question for Jeff. I wanna ask Jeff. Go ahead, Jay. Okay. Cause I do too. Isn't it true? Isn't it true? Yes. I'm starting a question like that. Yes. Isn't it true that in these prosecution situations, the prosecutor always charges more, lesser included offenses, other offenses. It would be wrong not to. And so you expect some acquittals on a number of charges. That's, this is what happened here. The other thing you... Well, you don't expect, yeah, I hear you. And they do do that in the anticipation that the more serious charge, the defendant's gonna be acquitted. So you go to the lesser included charges and you hope that the jury convicts on those. It was actually the opposite. Yeah, no, but you never know what the jury is gonna do.   But I'm dim-witted. I'm dim-witted and therefore I cannot follow what jurors do in anticipating. Okay, the other thing about this, Jim, is that this is reminiscent of what happened with the Department of Justice in the Rachel Maddow Ultra podcast series. In the Midwest, there was a trial where they charged 17 defendants with trying to overthrow the government, trying to assassinate members of the Congress and otherwise bring the government down. And the Department of Justice was roundly lost on that case. This is back in 1940 or so. And it does remind you that the Department of Justice is not really bulletproof. They can find a jury in an area which is sympathetic to the defendants and wind up taking the wrong verdict. And in a sense, my reaction to what happened about the lesser included offenses here is that maybe the jury was wrong. Maybe this jury was somewhat sympathetic to these guys. Hey, I just wanna point out, Tim, on a companion kind of issue, the Minnesota case in which they tried those five guys for attempting to kidnap the governor. There's a fascinating article in the New Yorker which no one would claim is a conservative reg, which essentially concludes that if it wasn't trumped up, and I don't mean Donald Trump, these charges, there was conspiracy by the FBI and others to get these guys convicted. And they went into the evidence and the communications that went on. These were five guys that couldn't find their way out of a paper bag that were charged with trying to kidnap and kill the governor. So there's been a lot of overreaching.  Oh, I know Jay's gonna respond to that. Wait a minute, I'm not done yet. Now I got you on the horn here, Jeff. Number one, I wanna clarify something you said. So what about the documents at Mar-a-Lago, the confidential documents, the classified documents? Are you saying there's no possibility of indictment there? No, no, no, no, I actually have a different view. Oh, okay. I think there is a real possibility of an indictment there. I was talking about indicting him for the insurrection quote unquote on January 6th. Right, well, okay, so there's a vast difference between convicting someone on a seditious conspiracy charge, which again, I think gets into the mindset of the defendant versus the obstruction of an official proceeding. I think that's a little more black and white than trying to get a conviction to. What about that charge? Well, you know, I'll be honest, I don't really know what the definition is of obstruction of an official proceeding. So I really can't respond to that. Oh, was everything Donald Trump did? Well, he didn't show up and stop them from taking a vote. I mean, look, I am not suggesting that he didn't encourage these crazy who didn't really need much encouragement anyway to do what they did. But it's a lot more to convict someone of actually instructing people and managing the attack on the Capitol. And I just don't think I've seen enough, but I think there are other things he's certainly done that are far more problematic for him and taking secret documents from the White House seems to me pretty open and shut. Yeah, I agree. All right, let's go to Chuck here. Chuck, to you on the same topic, I mean, seditious conspiracies are very difficult to breach and to cross. Do you think they go for a lesser charge as far as an indictment as it pertains to January 6th against Donald Trump? Well, I think Jeff and Jay both have had core elements of the truth here. And that is, this is still an ongoing investigation for the DOJ. The January 6th committee gave them a lot of stuff, which was mostly from Trump administration people. And that's helpful. In addition to that, now you have five people convicted who no longer have immunity. So whatever they may know about communications, if not with Trump, then with meadows and people who were in direct communication with Trump about the January 6th insurrection, we don't know what they may get on that. Well, yeah, they could follow the breadcrumb trails to Roger Stone, perhaps, or one of the people that were just under Donald Trump. It's never a direct line. It always takes time to get the middle parties. And I won't say that Rhodes was in the middle. He was slightly below the middle range there, but it's a matter of time just working the way up the ladder. Is it not? It is, but I think that's where Jeff's point comes into play is the more time and effort they spend on that, the more delay there is, the less likely it is that as Trump's 2024 campaign ramps up, that they'll proceed with indictment on that set of events, particularly when they've got the stronger one, any good lawyer knows who'd go with your strongest claim. I'm not sure. But don't forget, we're talking about this, we're talking about this as if it's a clear cut criminal matter. It's not, it's a political matter. That's the overriding concern here at the Justice Department. There might be enough evidence to indict on the criminal side, but you have to look at the political side. And that is what's driving, I'm sure, any decision by the Justice Department as to what to do with Trump or any of his cronies. Okay, wait a minute, wait a minute. Let me go with that. Let me go with that. This was a coup, this was a coup. What coup? What coup? Let me explain. It's a French word. I know what it is. Thank you very much. I took five years of Spanish. That explains everything. I'm very good at coup d'etat, coup d'etat. What I'm saying is this is the worst thing that could ever happen to the country, that we have a coup. I'm sure taking documents out of the White House, it happens, there are violations of classified information every day in the military, every day, but not- We didn't have a coup. We don't have coups every day. This is the most invasive, most destructive, most incredibly destructive thing that has happened in the history of the country. We can't afford to leave any stone unturned. We must make every effort to prosecute and show you can say, let's get him on a parking ticket. But the fact is he was trying to bring the country down, bring it down. So I would put all my marbles on that one. I would really work that one. We've got to stop the guy. If we don't stop him, he's going to get elected again, arguably, and if he gets elected again, whoa is us. It's going to be awful. I could give you details. So this is really critical. This is an inflection point. And we can't let it go. And I don't understand why the Department of Justice can't get its act together. They got roughly 100,000 people working for the Department of Justice, and they can't seem to get their act together. They got this committee working for what? How many months? Nine months already? They got all this evidence coming in, all these 1,000 interviews and depositions, what have you, and we feel okay.  And Jeff knows that in many, many cases, evidence or not, it's a matter of lawyering, lawyering. And I'm sure that if they really had the right people, they could take the evidence they have right now and they could indict, prosecute, convict, and punish Trump. And it's critical. Hey, Jeff, real quick. I understand you, your feelings about it is not a coup. What about your feelings about an attempted coup? I don't think it's any of that. I mean, what, so let's play it out. And I'm not justifying it, it's a horrible thing. People got killed and maimed. It was, what, play it out. Let's assume is exactly what happened. They delayed the vote. If it hadn't happened that night, it would have happened the next day. What kind of coup? There's no coup. When you assassinate the president, that's probably pretty close to a coup. This wasn't a coup.  And if they had managed to take over the Capitol for 24 hours until they were all killed by troops, the vote would have taken place two days later. So there's no coup. Let's not overstate it. It was a horrible attack on a government building where people got killed and injured, including police officers, and it delayed the vote.  These aren't people smart enough to figure out a coup. Yeah. Those idiots had a roadmap by Trump's attorneys saying that if you could delay it, you could get the state legislatures to basically step in and negate the electoral college electors. Yeah, I know that that's what they were told.  But that coup would not have been Trump's coup. You're blaming it on- Why is it right now a pending bill that they're hoping to enact between now and January to clarify and get down correctly how the electoral selection process actually works out? No, I agree that there is some confusion. There really isn't, but they want to clarify it so there's no question. But that coup, if it had happened, would have happened in various state legislatures. So who's responsible for that, Jay? You want to indict the legislature of Texas in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? I want to know what Chuck has to say about this. Lee, I want to hear it too. I want to hear it from Chuck too. Yeah, good point, Jay. Go ahead, Chuck, you've got the microphone. Okay, well, stepping back, the first thing we got to realize, we are a long way from a truly democratic republic or one in which the rule of law functions effectively. So any expectation that overwhelming evidence of Trump's encouragement and even involvement through his aides and associates in inciting the January 6th insurrection has to be played out against that backdrop. If the system is broken, and I think that's what Jeff's talking about and Jay's talking about fixing, that's where the attention needs to be devoted, not just correcting the electoral count provisions, but empowering the Department of Justice and the judiciary to proceed to enforce what the evidence appears to clearly demonstrate. Well, let me go to that, Chuck. I mean, the evidence clearly demonstrates there was at least minimally an attempt to delay official proceedings, which carries a 20-year sentence. Why so timid? Que pasas, Jay likes to say. I mean, I know they have Jack Smith and he's kind of the new DOJ Pitbull, and so far he's kind of living up to his name, but here's the deal. Why so timid?  The rule of law is the rule of law. Yes, there's politics involved, and I suspect that's why Merrick Garland appointed special counsel, Jack Smith, but in the end, you have the law. By God, you're an attorney. So let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, let's, because you worry about a political result, doesn't mean you don't try to enforce the law. I take Tim's point on that.  Do you think the country is divided now? I mean- Jeff, Jeff, the DOJ, they don't go up to bat unless they know they're going to hit this out of the park. They didn't hit it out of the park yesterday. And they didn't hit it out of the park in 1940 either. They sometimes- Well, I think that's why it's taking so long, but I, I want to hear from you guys. Remember Jeffrey Berman, okay? He was the US attorney for the Eastern District. And he resigned. He resigned under pressure by Trump. And, and he, when he wrote it, he wrote a book, you guys. And the book said, I'm not the only one who is, Trump was trying to manipulate in the Department of Justice. There are others who he tried to manipulate in the same way. With me, he failed. With others, he did not fail. And they are still in the Department of Justice. Yeah. Hey, Chuck, do you agree with Jeff that this is more political than the, the merits of the rule of law? And politics will win the day or, or will the rule of law win the day? What do you think? I think if we try to look back to see when the last time the rule of law really won the day, find me a time after Brown versus Board of Education. And even the implementation of that, the rule of law did not win the day. It took many decades to implement that even- What about Stuart, what about Stuart Rhodes and Kelly Migs? Did the rule of law win the day on the conviction of conspiracy of sedition? But that's the point, Tim. Hey, you can win a few battles individually, but if you're not making systemic change, the politics is gonna wind up in the end winning out because that's the forum in which it makes its own rules. It provides its own funding. Hey, it dictates its own outcome for political reasons independent of the rule of law. Look at gerrymandering. If we had the rule of law, there would be no room for gerrymandering. It's a purely political.    Which, yes, one could argue was political, but are certainly more easy to convict than convicting him of attempting to overthrow the election. I mean, look, I am not a Trump apologist as you guys know. I think he's an evil human being, but I think we get distracted by having conversations about how to try to destroy him because it's not easy. They haven't found the kryptonite. I know this sounds strange, Jeff, but I agree with you. They haven't found the kryptonite yet. It's hard to do that, but I do. And the reason is that all these things considered and all the manipulations and machinations of Trump and all the things that he can call for out of his base and the possibility of violence over this, which you alluded to, they're all standing in the way of the Department of Justice, of the administration, of the judges, the courts, the jurors, the prosecutors. He has done tremendous damage to our system to the extent we have had a rule of law, to the extent that the rule of law would call for his indictment, prosecution, conviction and punishment. It's been attacked and it's been undermined and he's done it. And so the likelihood, if you wanna make a pizza bet with me, I would not bet against Trump. I think he will escape all this, Teflon Don and I think he will campaign effectively with his base and I think he's already working. The members of the GOP who have attacked him, he's gonna try to change their minds and he will, I think. And at the end of the day, he stands a good chance of being our next president, awful. Pronounce silence. All right. Jay, let me go back to you on this. You saw Ari Melbourne's special report and all the pathways to reinstall Trump as the second term president. I think Ari Melbourne did a great job to show that those paths were not random but they were interconnected. Will the DOJ see it in that way? Will they also pick up on the House Select Committee report which is gonna be published here probably within weeks. Does that help them connect the dots and help them out as far as any kind of charges or indictments against Donald Trump? Well, it should. I watched that and I was entranced by it because Melbur is a lawyer. Melbur is a very clear thinking fellow. Melbur had a kind of Microsoft chart, a Gantt chart showing you all these things that have happened and the machinations that Trump has tried. Some of them, he said, and I agree, clearly legal, legal. And as we get closer to the current time, others clearly illegal. And the problem is can you take them together and establish the necessary intent? And the answer according to him is yes, you can because even if you can't find the necessary attempt in the last most recent machinations, if you look at them and you look at the ramp up of all the other machinations, it shows where Trump was going, what he was trying to do. And it's clear evidence of his increasing attempts to bring the government down, that's a coup. And so I think Melbur is brilliant. And if you haven't seen it, you can find it on YouTube. It's all there, it's about an hour long. It was his show last week. Well, I think he was talking to the Department of Justice. He was giving them a roadmap on how to analyze this. I thought he was talking to Jamie Raskin. Those guys are stuck in millions of pieces of evidence and maybe they lose their way. This is a roadmap that they could use in their report which is coming hopefully soon and before the end of the year. He was talking to both of those people and if they adopt his approach, which is it's beyond circumstantial evidence. It's here, take a look at all these dots, connect all these dots in which you get as a very clear statement of intention. If they connect those dots the way he suggests, I think they can find enough to make a path toward indictment. Jeff says it's political. I didn't see it, I didn't see it, but if it had been on Fox, it might have had more of an impact. Well, I agree there, Jeff. I mean, look guys, we may not want to face it. This guy was this close to being president for a second term, 20,000 votes in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. That's because of the electoral college, which is a whole other issue. You want to talk about making changes rather than indicting Trump. But having said that, look, he's going to run in the primaries, he's probably going to win the primaries and we're going to have a Trump versus somebody in 2024. And it's up to the voters.  And if they keep manipulating in state legislatures by gerrymandering or changing the voting laws, we might have Trump, but that's because more people in states that have more electoral college votes are going to vote for Trump. That's the scary thing. We get distracted by whether we should be indicted. We should be concerned about the fact that he could win this election pretty easily if things continue to go the way they are with one, the electoral college, which isn't changing, and two, voting laws and gerrymandering. And if you think gerrymandering's been bad, the Republicans control more state legislatures now than they did before November. Well, Jeff, I mean, come on, if Trump gets indicted and even convicted on a lesser charge. Well, if he gets indicted. He's not eligible for president in the United States. Yeah, that's a big F. Well, I'll go tomorrow on the document case and that's not a big F. Nobody knows what that section means. He's never, ever going to agree that it applies to him. All right, so I'll tell you what. You threw out the gauntlet about a pizza bet. We'll see which of the three of you, other than Jay, want to take the pizza bet. I will bet there's no way he ever gets indicted for anything on January 6th. Pizza bet? I'm not voting against that. I mean, I'm not. Yeah, I'll think about it, Jeff. Yeah, yeah. Let me get back to you. We'll get back to you. But I'm doing this show anyway, you know? Come on, Chuck, I gotta break to you on this one. You know, I saw recently a documentary on Phil Spector in the murder trial cases against the murder of Lana Clarkson. And Spector was quoted to say, hey, once you're indicted in this country, there is a presumption of guilt. And basically he was implying that I can't get a fair trial in this murder case because I've been indicted. Is there any truth to that statement that in this country, if you're indicted, there's a presumption of guilt? And is that one of the reasons why Donald Trump has thrown his hat in the ring for the 2024 presidential election early? Well, first of all, the more you politicize a particular case, the less you can defer to that presumption. Hey, if you've got a case of drug trafficking or murder, that presumption may be true in most cases. But in highly politicized cases, as we've seen, that's not the case and the results are hard to predict. So I think Jeff's right on the mark that go ahead and hit him on tax fraud and evasion. Those are cases that the government wins all the time or almost all the time. Hey, go from that to the Mar-a-Lago documents. There's not much precedent there, but the law appears to be clear enough that there should be sufficient grounds for conviction, at least at some level of criminal offense. Hey, Tim, if you're gonna quote somebody on this, you might as well quote Hannibal Lecter. You're quoting Phil Specter, another crazed individual. I didn't say it was a good quote. I just said it was a quote. That's not exactly somebody, you might as well have quoted Al Capone then on that principle. Well, so what you get indicted, there's still a presumption of innocence. I talked to him. Remember, he has his ways, he's Teflon of dealing with a trial. So even if he gets indicted on his stuff, there's gotta be a trial. And one of his great ambits is to delay it, to run the clock on everything. So query, will there be time the way we're going? It doesn't look like it. Well, Jack Smith made a pretty clear statement that delay is not the strategy he's gonna play with. Okay, sure, that's nice. But the reality is that Trump is an expert, more than he is, on how to deal with delay, how to make delay happen. Up to the Supreme Court every time we get a chance on all this and all the discovery gambits he has. So one is, can we get a conviction? Final of appeal, right? Final of appeal, between now and the time this 24 election is decided, I doubt it. And wait till January, wait till January when the Republicans start their investigations in the house of Mary and Garland and everyone else, there's no chance of an attack. Exactly, exactly. It's not gonna happen. It's gonna disrupt the whole system. Chuck, do you agree with Jeff and potentially Jay about no indictment against Trump regarding January 6th? Well, no indictment, no conviction, final of appeal. No, I was just talking about indictment. How do you use section three of the 14th Amendment or section two of the 14th Amendment? I'm not talking about 14th in the third paragraph. I'm talking about an indictment against Donald Trump as it relates to the January 6th attack on the Capitol. You think that would stop his election? A lot of people in this country would say, so what? It's just a big witch hunt. Chuck, to you. Yeah, two things. One, it's so highly politicized. Why would it change the voting electorate's perception that this is a political fight, not a rule of law fight? And second, and this is a factor we haven't talked about, but it's worth thinking about, Trump has shown really, really poor choice of litigation lawyers. He's used the process for delays exactly as Jay said, but ultimately, his results are negative in almost every case, the 60-something cases he brought to try and throw out the election, the delay attempts that he's made, the attempt to use the special master process. All of those are failing, and Giuliani, Powell, and the others are not coming out as successful or respected lawyers. Does he have anybody that will stick up for him that is that good? I haven't seen it. I know we've had a sedate conversation about this topic, but let's get energized and tell us how you really feel. Jay, we'll start with you. I'm afraid the markers are already on the table. We're not gonna have a timely indictment, Jack Smith or not. We're not gonna have a timely prosecution, conviction, final of appeal. So all of this, and I agree with Jeff on this, all of this is really secondary. What really is primary is whether his base, the people who support him, are affected in any way, whether their votes are affected in any way by all of this talk about indictment. I'm pessimistic. Okay.  I want sausage and extra cheese on my pizza. Okay. God, that's a great answer, Ben. Any other sage advice for us before we depart? I am no apologist for Trump. I think he's created a horrible division in this country. Unfortunately, there's a third of the country that would follow him into the Hudson River if he decided to go there.  I don't think he's going to get indicted for January 6th. I think there's hopefully a reasonable chance he gets indicted both in New York for tax crimes and maybe even in Washington for taking secret documents. And I think that politically- Don't forget Georgia. Don't forget Georgia. Yeah, I'm not sure what's going to happen in Georgia, but that phone call is certainly distressing, but I'm not sure it's criminal. Find me another 10,000 votes. I don't think you get a conviction out of that, but having said all of that, unfortunately, it's going to be up to the voters and up to the Democrats to see if they can put up a credible candidate in 2024 and whether that's Biden, if he lives that long, hopefully he does, but that doesn't mean he should be running at 82 years old. We'll see what happens because we know that a third of the country will vote for Trump regardless, even if he's indicted. All right. Thank you very much, Jeffrey. Chuck, you get the last word today. Look, what worked for the Democrats in 2020 and in 2022 to the extent it did was to come out with things that attracted those swing voters, not swing states, but swing voters, the young voters, the independents. And the Trump picture is part of that, but it's not the key part. Abortion and other things, labor laws and other things were much more influential with those voters. So that's where the difference is going to come out, not in indictments of Trump or politicized criminal prosecutions between now and 2024. See what happens. And I add one other point too. There was a piece of news this morning and we knew this before that the GOP in Congress has got an initiative going to terminate or modify social security. This is a wild card because a lot of people, a lot of people, including the base would be grossly affected by that. And so we don't know what the changes will be. We don't know what, we only know there'll be changes, remarkable things happen. And of course, DeSantis is an element in this. So who knows, as Jeff says, who knows? That's why there's no way I'm gonna ban my double cheese or otherwise. Okay, well, thank you, Jay. And I'd like to just add that to my esteemed co-host and esteemed special guest, I prefer vegetarian pizza, please. So we'll see how that pays out. Hey, Tim, how come in the left box? Oh, there it is again. We have your house in the picture.  It's a very nice house, very nice house you have. I'm not sure what neighborhood that is. Yeah, it's called Washington, DC, if you're talking about the Capitol. Yeah, I'm talking about the house in the upper left. Oh, I don't see it. Oh, it doesn't show on us, okay. No, I just have no idea. Once again, Jeff, I have no clue to what you're speaking about. Yeah, boy, I've been attacked. I'm not coming on anymore. Forget about special guests.  I'm done, I'm done. I can't take it anymore. Sure you can. We got a lot more planned for you in the future. I'd like to thank all my special guests, Jeffrey Portnoy, Chuck Crumpton, and I'd like to thank my special co-host, Jay Fidel, for once again, a boring sedate conversation as it pertains to Donald Trump. I'd like to thank everyone for joining us for American Issues Take One. I'm Tim Apichel, your host. Won't you please join us next week? Thank you and aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn, and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.


San Jose Convention Center, extracting the signal from the noise. It's theCUBE, covering Hadoop Summit 2015. Brought to you by headline sponsor, Hortonworks, and by EMC, Pivotal, IBM, Pentaho, Teradata, Syncsort, and by Atunituandisco, now your host, John Furrier. Okay, welcome back everyone. We are live here in Silicon Valley in San Jose for Hadoop Summit 2015. This is Silicon Angles theCUBE. This is our flagship program. We go out to the events and extract the signal from the noise. We've got two great guests here. We've got Ryan Peterson, Chief Solutions Strategy at EMC, and Mike Cookie, Senior Director of Outbound Product at Pivotal, welcome guys to theCUBE. Thanks for having us. So we were talking earlier this morning. I mean, a lot of stuff circulating here in the air. Obviously the keynote's all about the enterprise. You know, Rob Bearden's got a John Chambers like swagger up there.  He had the flu, I remember correctly. But things are good right now in the software business.  You guys are doing some great stuff there. But there's a really interesting dynamic going on between the big players, the startup ecosystems, open source ecosystems, ODP, cloud now really accelerating with software oriented tooling and platforms to make things easy. So the theme is easy. So what's your take, you know guys, what's going on Ryan, EMC? I mean EMC, complete 360 from where it was. You know, a year ago, open source. You've got cloud scaling. You guys are talking about code, DevOps? I mean code, can we? We're no longer your father's EMC, right? We're definitely changing the way we go to market. We're shifting the culture from kind of the old school mentality, the new school mentality. And we're taking our new products and we're really going out there and changing the way that people adopt these solutions. And with a great federation partner like Pivotal and of course other federation partners like VMware, we're able to really change the way that people are going to market with their, and change their strategies. Mike, so talk about Pivotal, obviously, and Pivotal was acquired by VMware or the spin out I was called that Pivotal became. It was doing Agile before Agile was Agile. It was the software, it was that generation of San Francisco, Clouderati, came out of that whole early stage DevOps movement. Now with EMC, how's that federation partnership working? What are you guys working on? And what is some of the benefits? Because we're hearing that from Pat Gelsinger, like 10 Ways from Sunday, the federation at EMC World, we had two cubes there, it was very clear, Joe Tucci, the federation is a value add for customers. Where is that value? Yeah, so first of all, Pivotal Labs was from EMC actually, it was acquired by EMC. They were the killer Agile developers for 25 years. And I think that was the beginning of EMC seeing their customer base kind of demand this next generation of competitiveness through software to your earlier point. So at the time when we started Pivotal, we had these Agile developers over here and we had these big data solutions over here and they were very split up in terms of how we went to market. What's happened over two years is this is all kind of played out the way we expected and now all of these component parts are really required to build this next generation platform. To your point though, it's not easy. There's a lot of different technologies. There's this development practice that could be disruptive as well. And I think where the federation uniquely can provide these benefits is providing that guidance, doing the pre-engineering required to kind of harden these solutions and deliver something that's really rapidly delivering value to the customer base. So that's where I think we really work together really well and it's changed. Two years ago that meant one thing. To your point about this conference, I think what's exciting here is we're hitting this inflection point where the use cases that Hadoop and Big Data are now generating are becoming application drivers. And I think that's where this buzz is creating the connection between Big Data and analytics, a development methodology and to your point the cloud. But again, so complex to put these pieces together at an enterprise class level. And I think that's a place that we're pioneering together. Let's talk about the customer journey, right? So the customer cares about one thing. I don't want to get fired. I got to produce results. Now top line and bottom line cost savings if you will, which is perfect economics. The cloud and Big Data sets the table for a lot of all that stuff. What's going on? Because again, it's not easy. DevOps is now front and center. This ecosystem has open source, which is always moving, right? SLAs are, they mean something, right? And you've got to deliver value, right? This is something that, I mean, ISLON has filled that gap in an emerging Hadoop ecosystem for a long time. I mean, the other piece to your economics point, right? You have this huge customer base leveraging ISLON as their infrastructure of choice. And then these disruptive forces come in and drive this change into the IT operation system. And something I'm proud of ISLON for is they saw that change coming and they pivoted to be that kind of foundation to guide them with a lower risk platform. So, I'm sure you'd say this, Ryan, but two years ago it was about a really stable foundation for Hadoop, for HDFS. It was about leveraging this investment they had made in ISLON in this next generation use case. Today, we've kind of solved that. ODP, to your point, the open data platform has created kind of a very consistent and predictable foundation to support. Now it's about advanced analytics on that data set. And this is, again, the place I see ISLON. We've recently just made some advances on their platform. They made advances, actually, that enable advanced analytics executing right against their storage array, which I think is a sign. The customers moved from landing data to processing data. Now they actually want to operationalize that data. To Michael's point, I mean, we've had customers, two years ago, we're talking about MapReduce, MapReduce, MapReduce, and we were really focused on how do we make MapReduce really efficient and work well against ISLON. But the conversations today are, how do we make Hock work, how do we make Hive work, how do we get into more of the upper layer stack, and then more importantly, how do we actually drive results and new value from the data? My favorite stories now are the ones where people actually tell me what they've done to change the business. And I tell you, I met with a telco, for example, and it dropped calls, how do we don't know? We don't know how many drop calls are because of the person's handset being bad. We don't know if it's because they disconnect from the tower, or if the tower was a problem. But if it's a handset, we can fix that. We can go out to the handset, tell the customer, hey, replace your handset. But the problem is, in order to get to that point, people had to start driving data into a facility, storing that content with no understanding of what they might get out of it. And that I think is to some of the analyst reports that are coming out to the point. People are not understanding what the value is. They're looking for a case study, a use case to actually start working on. And actually it's almost backwards. We've got a lot of our customers are saying, hey, I just got to go collect all my Lego pieces from around the house and bring it all to one place so I can figure out what I can build. Because I don't even know what I've got. Well, that's step one, right? You got to have that brute force energy of having the mindset and cultural shifts and hey, we're going to think differently. This isn't a, have a meeting, assign an action item, some department goes build something. Is it like this stuff that has to get done first? But it's a massive shortcut to get that done, right? You mentioned SLAs. If you're doing this with proven, mature infrastructure solutions, right? Iceland's already embedded. The cluster's already there, maintaining an SLA enterprise class, storage infrastructure for the customer. So if you're able to adopt that existing infrastructure and those existing SLAs and proven experience, then all of a sudden you've got this new use case with a lot less risk. Well, this is a great point, Mike. This is the future proof we've been hearing and as a word that's been around since I was, broken in the business 30 years ago, which is always code word for charge more money and promises will come out later. But in a market that's moving so fast, this is what people need. They want to have a starting point. They want a bridge and a partner to cross over that bridge to the future with. So it's very relevant right now. So I got to ask you, there is an SLA requirement, but also there's also training is also, I need to knock down some quick wins first. I need to operationalize it. Now customers I've heard said, I have no problem spending money on gear and tech. They've used to, they write checks all day long, EMC, IBM, everyone gets checks written to them, but they don't want to get stuck with irrelevant stuff and a cul-de-sac with no outcomes. Right, so again, that's why everyone's using the word business outcomes. So I got to ask you, what is, if we believe that outcomes is what they want and they'll write checks for stuff, whether it's cloud, gear, how do you get a customer to walk the first few steps and then what is that bridge? What is that future proof message? What do they need to have in place? So I have a conversation about this actually tomorrow at 8 p.m. It's a great question. The discussion is, where do I move my data to make it so it's future proof and accessible by anything in the future? And this is where I really believe that our story shines because if you move your data into a tool set, then you've locked your data into that tool set. And it could be something as simple as an Oracle database and you put that and you've locked it into a DVF file and all of a sudden that data's no longer accessible. You have to access it, move it, translate it, convert it, whatever. And I think that the future of the data, the data lake is all about keeping that data in a raw format, making it accessible to any particular tool set and ultimately abstracting that value up into Cloud Foundry, where I can then build any kind of application against that data, whether it's an analytical application or a business driving application. Yeah, I used to love Joe Tutti's comments around resource pools and it was generic. He didn't say EMC, it was implied EMC because they had a market share, but now with commodity hardware or cloud, you can put it anywhere. So as long as it's not locked in, it's accessible. Yeah, you can move stuff around, but putting data into a new schema and to new ETL systems, these are the, that's the lock-in, right? That's what you're saying. You're locking it into the tool then. As soon as you lock into the tool set, well then it's, If you can do a lock-in, lock-in to a platform at least, right, I mean, or have no lock-in. Ideally no lock-in, right? Yeah. I'm a big proponent and I think EMC'd be okay with me saying this, is I'm a big proponent for keeping it completely flexible at the storage level, at the compute layer, at the software layer, and ultimately up in the application layer. And I think that by using open source commodity components and having an open and flexible data lake architecture, you can do that, you can do that really well. Mike, talk about the conflict between open source and SLA, because this is something that's come up last year. Certainly a big data SV, we talk about this with the ODP, with the folks from Pivotal as well. We kind of hit them over, we're hard with this, but they answered it really well. They, you know, it was, okay, open source is moving really, really fast, but the customers aren't, right? So the customers need hardened something, it's something that's hardened with support. So we were speculating and discussing candidly, it's not a bad thing to be lag a little bit, because if someone's on a migration path for say a year or two, they don't really, they want a trusted partner to keep an eye on what's going on in the public, open source. I think, Move the innovations in. Is that ODP's mission or is that just, or generically more of a guiding principle? No, that's exactly the mission. I think also what Ryan was just pointing out, those stages he just said, there's foundations with absolutely open communities around them for both those stages he was mentioning. So that's exactly right. I would say, you know, the open source momentum has been amazing. It's resulted in this phenomenal development curve that we really haven't seen before. It's amazing innovation. But you pointed this out earlier, you were talking about lock-in and what, you know, one thing the customers really invest in is their software stack for analytics, right? So you have these very mature software analytics packages and a relatively mature existing analytical warehouse, data warehouse ecosystem underneath it. And when the customer goes to mature towards a Hadoop use case or an advanced use case on top of Hadoop, they need to know that that software stack that they're using can be migrated. The skill set that knows how to use that software stack has to be able to be migrated. So I think ODP Open Data Platform gives us the ability to say, look, all of you amazingly powerful ISVs, your software packages have to migrate with your customers so they can leverage this next generation. And the ODP enables us to effectively do what you said, except the idea is to really shrink the amount of time that they have to wait between an Apache innovation and maybe an enterprise implementation of that Apache implementation. So yes, the ODP kind of rides above the Apache ecosystem and tries to collect a very particular and predictable set of the Apache projects so that enterprises, but also the ecosystem around it can kind of start to adopt it rapidly. Yeah, Ryan, I want to get your thoughts. We had Donna Prilich on earlier. She's a geek. She's awesome. She's been involved in Hadoops since the beginning. We love talking to her. She wrote up a good point, which is no one does 200 node clusters out of the box. So this is the reality of customers. We're beyond POCs now, right? Okay, so POCs, they're happening all day long and has its own agenda. But when people put their toe in the water, they want to get their feet wet. They're going to come in 1925 node cluster, somewhat running the engine, redlining it, they're going to test it, and then move into some sort of reference architecture. So I want you to take me through the state of the union on reference architectures. How important are they? Do you guys have them? You see that as critical success for the customers. Can you elaborate on that part of the customer interaction? Let me just back you up one second because I think there's a little more variety in terms of the ways that enterprises are adopting this. There's some enterprises that are under such critical threat because their entire industry is being toppled over. And you better believe it's not about 20 nodes for them. It's about a complete replatforming. Like, how do I immediately change what I'm doing because the trajectory that I'm developing at and leveraging data at is going to fail. So there's a lot of companies, a lot of enterprises just being completely toppled. And in that case, there's a lot more urgency and a lot more interest in building a next generation platform potentially in parallel. But I think to your point, most people- Well, let's take those two cases. Well, those are two good use cases. So the one is just like, okay, we're going to hobble along. We're going to put some mile markers out on the milestones and we're going to go through this transformation. The next use case that didn't fit the old picture, let's build that new thing out. We're not under, we don't have a gun to our head. Now, the second one, which I love, which is like, I'm a financial services company or someone like that, it's like, I better, I got to move, the game is on, the clock is ticking, I got to transform as fast as possible. I don't look like Amazon. Something's wrong, right? Yeah, so take me through that. Culture, tech, roadmap, Bill Schmarzo walking, or you guys send the team in, parachuting in, how many people on the customer side, give us a taste of what that flavor is. Questions, where does the decision being made? If the decision is at the executive level, they see the threats and they understand it.  How can we help you change your business completely, revamp it, and come with a whole big data strategy behind it and let's execute against the particular vision to make that happen. But that's a smaller majority. Really, the group of people that you're talking about, I think, is those people that are from the bottom up. The business hasn't quite. Get ahead of it. Yeah, the business hasn't quite gotten there yet. So IT's saying, hey, I see all this data. I think I could probably find some really unique value from it. And we've got great example use cases of customers where they went to executives and said, did you know we could provide you this information? Wow. Well, I think the majority of people here at this event are in that camp, but I think what Mike's pointing out is there are named accounts that are huge, that you have that relationship to. So I want to kind of tease out the order of magnitude of the seismic shift because compliance server back in the 90s, when I broke into the business early 90s was, that was a mandate. Okay, let's move from mainframe to client server. And SAP, HP sold gears, sun was around then, or we all the guys we know. That was a three year process to load a CRM system, ERP system, to get printed checks. Like, okay, yeah, what do we get? For the zillions of dollars we spend in three years later, but we have data coming in and we have nice fancy checks and other cool automation. That's three years. What's the timetable now? What's the equivalent shift in acceleration? Again, I think it has to be done in a matter of months, six months, you've got to be up and running. I mean, your first project, I think you get a line of business request maybe that hits the operations team and they say, this doesn't look like it's going to fit in any of the holes that we have shaped, right? So they say we got to do something differently. Again, lowering that bar of entry and saying, hey, we've got this Isilon system here, let's carve this up for this new use case, immediately turn on HDFS on that system and all of a sudden you can leverage your existing infrastructure. You start landing those technologies in. I think it's really about just defining that next platform for that single use case, right? Because the economics are different and the return is drastically different. There's an app driving this, right? So they're predicating the apps doing all the plowing. The other is the piece that Ryan was mentioning, which is if operations teams start to leverage these technologies themselves, there's amazing insights that can be had at the operational level as well, right? So IT is becoming an innovation engine. I think we're seeing, if you think about the last 10 years, IT has been a service industry constantly a cost center for the company. Underfunded, a bottleneck, right? No options as an operation, note everything. All right, so if we take an operations team that becomes a software is eating the world operations team, all of a sudden they're actually driving insight into the business about behavior or application. DCIT is a bottleneck right now. Do you think they've come to grips with the fact that they need to be driving the bus or getting out of the way? Each company's different, right? Some of them, they're really innovating and they get it. I like to say CIOs are either chief information officers or they're chief innovation officers. And it really splits between two camps and every single time you meet the customer you can tell exactly how their CIO thinks. And the rest of the organization thinks that same line. Yeah, hello, Cloud, Shadow IT. Right, so again, let's get to the Cloud. Sure. To wrap up the segment. Cloud is, I mean, OpenStack was an eye-opener. I mean, so Brian Gallagher ran billion dollar P&L at EMC's now. Building from the crowned up, EMC's open source, open presence, open the open EMC, EMC Open, or whatever you guys call it. You have Azure kick and butt. You have Google out there. You got Amazon. You got VMware. Trying to go fast as they can. HP, I mean, IBM. This is interesting, right? So what's interesting is that Cloud Foundry, a pivotal spin out, or they've created a foundation, is the center point of that. So if you look at ODP and Cloud Foundry, I'm smelling some synergy there, guys. Connect the dots between that. And how is that going to accelerate what I've seen as a slowdown in this ecosystem? Sure, sir. Or am I, did I? No, no, no. I'll say something quickly and then you can take it from there. I think that's where we actually stand out, really uniquely, right? We launched something called the Federation Business Data Lake and that is literally the collection of pivotal technologies with EMC technologies and VMware technologies that is a reference architecture and engineered solution to deliver to enterprise customers. But I think that's where you find the Federation really has a unique stack. I mean, the ability to combine where we're heading with our PAS and our data services being combined into that platform as a service and then how the EMC Federation behind it can supply that kind of predictable infrastructure and rapid scale out. And then the other thing I was going to pass to you is you were saying, how do we achieve these initial projects? Their service is heavy today. And you were saying earlier, customers love to write that check to the infrastructure team or the IT technology team. They're starting to wonder why they're writing those big service checks. And I think our job is to create a situation where they don't need to do that anymore and they can actually achieve it on their own. You've got to deliver a relevant solution so they're not stuck in some cul-de-sac with a product and or app that's not delivering. Because they're already out of the limb. So, and this is going to come out on our keynote tomorrow with CJ, so it's still a thunder. But, you know, we're releasing a whole series of big data products to handle exactly where the customer wants to put it, how fast they want to run it. So ECS, for example, or Elastic Cloud Storage is for those service providers, for the ability to have service providers start building those solutions, whether it's with a big service provider or with VMware or whoever it might be, we're going to start providing that ability to transition data, whether it's on-prem, Icelon type of implementation, or in the cloud, whether it's the new DSSD technologies we're bringing out, all these new things are really about making it so you have an open and flexible opportunity to put any data anywhere. So, Ryan, you mentioned CJ, CJ Desai, who's the SVP runs the new emerging technology group at EMC. Which, by the way, Icelon is not in because they're in the core technologies. No, we're over at ETD. We're under CJ, yeah. Icelon is. Icelon, oh, no, Icelon is, I'm sorry, Icelon is, but ExtremeIO is not in. So one's emerged, but no, it's a cash cow, I get why. I explain that on my EMC views, I don't want to waste my time on that now.  You got a lot of cool mandates there, you got a lot of flexibility, you got a lot of stuff going on in the flash. What's going on?  I got to say, I always tell people, they ask me, you work for a storage company, it's not boring, no, this is an awesome opportunity. We're right in the middle of innovating the next generation of what EMC will be. It's incredible, and having people like CJ, the awesome leader, Sam Groek, I mean, all these guys are incredibly great leaders. We're really building something new, innovative, flexible, and I think you'll see some things coming out in the next year or so that's going to just be around. So we were speculating on theCUBE last week, can a storage company stand alone and win? The answer is no. Right. And NetApp, obviously the CEO got, there was a thin boardroom thing that went down, still trying to get to the bottom of it. NetApp, darling in storage. You guys are shifting away to software, right? An emerging cloud, pure still out there. So it's interesting, this storage market, if you're not in an integrated stack, this is my personal opinion, if you're not an integrated stack, software, you're going to be not positioned well. It's about thinking differently. So CJ will tell us, don't worry necessarily about innovating at the hardware level, we're going to do that DSSD example of that. But really we're abstracting the storage value from physical storage and going to the software. So whether it's I salon, it's going to get abstracted out of the hardware. You got all of our software defined storage systems. That's the future, software will eat the world. I love chatting with you guys, we're getting a hook here. I want to press on, I can do another 30 minutes. But I want to give you guys the final word for the folks out there watching. What's going on at this show? What are you guys doing? What's happening in the Hadoop big data ecosystem? Talk about some of the dynamics quickly. What's happening here? What should they know about what's going on here and what are you guys doing here? I'll start, the business has shifted from collecting all your data to building applications. We're going directly from here's all the information Hadoop was being played with, application providers are coming out of the woodworks and creating new capabilities that you can just buy as opposed to having to build manually. I think that shift to application development and shift to automated applications, that is the future in my perspective. And I hate to say that I feel like we were right, but in February we said that this year was going to be about open, being agile, and being cloud ready. And we basically talked about all three here today. You know, from an agile perspective for us, you mentioned this, but we have to support fully virtualized stacks across all of our database products, all of our analytics products, and all of our application stack. The merging of our application stack with our data analytics stack in the big data suite has been picked up really rapidly. And I think the cloud and agile piece basically feed each other, but there has to be this IT operational flexibility without killing the business. I think you guys just summarized my argument against Paul Martino, my friend now venture capitalist, who went on Bloomberg, no, went on CNBC and said, there's an enterprise bubble. There is a consumer bubble, maybe some outliers in the enterprise like Box and whatnot, but in Dropbox. But what you just said is an innovation dream, right? Cloud is really coming on strong, huge opportunities for startups and companies. So guys, thanks so much for coming on theCUBE. We'll be right back with more after this short break. This is Silicon Angles theCUBE, we'll be right back after this short break. Thanks for having us. Thanks for having us.


Oh god, oh god. I'd love to be able to see my screen. I have the no basic attack penalty items so I can just run away.  Oh, no Thank you, maybe Do you get that kill still?


How can we define the meaning relations between the words of a language? The branch of semantics concerned with this question is referred to as lexical semantics, and it constitutes the focus of this e-lecture. In particular, we will look at sense relations in general, and we will then define the main sense relations from synonymy to myronomy. Let us first of all locate the topic of sense relations within semantics. Now within semantics, with its main branches of word semantics, sentence semantics, and utterance semantics, word semantics seeks to explain the phenomenon of meaning in natural language by means of defining the nature of word meaning. There are two ways of looking at word meaning resulting in two branches of word semantics. Reference or referential semantics, and sense or lexical semantics. While reference deals with the relationship between the linguistic elements and the non-linguistic world of experience, sense relates to the complex system of relationships that hold between the linguistic elements themselves. It is concerned only with intra-linguistic relations. For this reason, some linguists refer to this field as lexical semantics. We will concentrate on sense, that is, the definition of the meaning relations between the words or more precisely the lexemes of a language. The logician Gottlob Freger was the first to distinguish two dimensions of our semantic knowledge of an expression, its sense and its reference. Sense is represented in our minds in terms of concepts. Hence, words or lexemes are better conceived of as labels for concepts rather than objects. A number of linguists have equated sense with sense relations by defining the sense of a linguistic expression as the set or network of sense relations that hold between it and other expressions of the same language. These sense relations are central to the way speakers and hearers construct meaning. There is disagreement among linguists about the number of sense relationships at the level of words or, as I already said, to be more precise the level of lexemes. The most common view defines three sense relations. Synonymy, Antonomy and hyponymy. Some linguists include even a fourth relationship, namely Myronomy. While others, and that is a more extended view, prefer hyponymy as one relationship, which includes then Myronomy and incompatibility as a second semantic or sense relationship. Let's now look at these sense relations in detail and let's start with synonymy. Synonymy is traditionally defined as sameness of meaning. It can, however, be maintained that no two words or lexemes have exactly the same meaning. It would seem unlikely that two such elements would survive in a language. There are at least five dimensions, according to which possible synonyms can differ. There are dialectal differences. The example over here is autumn and fall. They both have the same semantic core, yet they are used in different varieties or dialects of English. We can find stylistic differences such as between gentleman and chap. Again, they have the same semantic core, however, they use depends on stylistic aspects. Statesmen and politician involve the difference referred to as emotive difference. Again, same semantic core, but their emotive extensions are different. And some lexemes require specific contexts or collocations. They are collocational restricted. You can have rancid butter and adult eggs, but not vice versa. And last but not least, we have cases of semantic overlap, such as the two adjectives ripe and mature. With these differences in mind, synonymy can best be defined as relatedness in meaning. That is, two words or lexemes have identical semantic cores, but different extensions. Intuitively, some pairs of synonyms are more synonymous than others. Thus, three degrees of synonymy are often distinguished. Absolute synonymy, partial synonymy, some sort of overlap, and near synonymy. Let us now look at the second relationship, autonomy. The term autonomy is used for oppositeness of meaning. In contrast to synonymy, autonomy is a very regular feature of natural language and can be defined fairly precisely. Here you have antonym pairs such as hot and cold or pass and fail. Since there are many ways in which lexical items can stand in opposition to each other, some linguists reject the term autonomy and suggest the term incompatibility instead. According to this view, synonymy would be defined as a converse relationship of incompatibility. Now, there are several ways in which lexical items can stand in opposition to each other. Let us look at these more closely. One possibility is referred to as gradable autonomy. Now, this is a relationship between opposites where the positive of one term does not necessarily imply the negative of the other. In other words, the opposition is a matter of degree rather than absolute. This type of opposition is usually associated with adjectives such as wide, old, tall, hot, etc. The items in a set of gradable antonyms are all mutually exclusive. They are all gradable and they represent different points along a scale according to which they can diver. Here is an example of such a scale. Now, we have the antonyms, hot and cold, but between them there are several possibilities. Cold, for example, is a very low temperature. Cool is a bit higher, tepid is somewhere in the middle, warm is even higher and hot is the highest of these terms. The items are implicitly comparative terms and their definition varies according to the reference and according to the norm against which the reference is being assessed. For example, look at the term hot in a hot bath versus a hot drink. Well, certainly both involve different degrees of hotness. A second type of antonyms is referred to as non-gradable or binary antonyms. Now, this type of antonyms differs from gradable antonyms in that the opposition is absolute. There are just two incompatible terms in the set. One is the opposite of the other. Each of the following pairs exhibits this either or relationship. For example, dead versus alive or male and female or pass and fail. However, as you all know, speakers can always alter these two term classifications to create special effects.  You can say something like he's very much alive or you can say something like after the match we were almost dead. And then look at this sentence. Zombies are neither dead nor alive. They are undead. Gradable? Well, that's actual language use. Incompatibility, another type of antonomy, can be thought of as a relation of exclusion. Incompatibles are terms which denote categories which share no members. If something is a dog, then it is not a cat, a mouse or an elephant. Sentences with incompatible terms will thus contradict each other. A well known example is the set of color terms where, for example, the meaning of blue is incompatible with the meaning of red as well as with the meanings of the other color terms. It should be noted though that incompatibility does not necessarily imply oppositeness of meaning. Red is not the opposite of blue. It's just incompatible with it. Quite interestingly, the color terms do not have a superordinate term. Since the term colored normally excludes black and white, we may have an example of hyponymy. Well, we will return to that issue later. A distinction is sometimes made between ordered and unordered taxonomies. For example, there's no natural way as far as the meaning is concerned to arrange the set of kitchen utensils such as cup and pot and fork and knife in any kind of order. By contrast, the days of the week constitute an ordered taxonomy. The fourth type of autonomy I would like to mention is referred to as relational. Relational antonyms differ from gradeable antonyms in that they are not susceptible to degrees of opposition and from binary antonyms because they're not either or in character. In fact, their opposition involves movement or orientation in opposite directions. For this reason, they are also called directional opposites. There are two subtypes of relational antonyms. We have something referred to as reversives, that is, normally a relationship between verbs describing movement or more generally change in opposite directions. Fall versus rise or push versus pull are two examples. And then we have so-called converses, terms which describe a relation between two entities from alternative viewpoints. If A is above B, then B is below A. If A buys something from B, then B sells something to A. An interesting concept related to autonomy is referred to as the concept of marketness. The members of antonyms pairs are often distinguished with respect to their marketness, where one of the items, the marked term, is said to possess a special mark, which the other, the unmarked or default term, does not have. The notion of marketness is used in a variety of ways by different linguists. Here, we distinguish three major types of marketness. For example, morphological marketness, where one item in a pair of opposites carries a morphological mark that the other lacks. This mark is typically a negative prefix. So let's look at these examples here. Well, let's apply red color to them. And as you can see, we now can add a prefix such as unhappy, impossible, or disregard to create the marked terms. A second type of marketness is referred to as distributional marketness. In sets of gradable antonyms such as long and short, high and low, the unmarked term is the item that can be used in a wider variety of contexts. For example, in questions or quality descriptions. A question would normally be a phrase such as how long is something, how high is something, but only very rarely how short is something and how low is it. Note that for some items, for example, hot and cold, which we discussed earlier on, there is no such pattern. Semantic marketness is a distinction that applies to pairs of opposites in contexts, where the normal opposition between the two terms is neutralized or non-operational. In such contexts, the unmarked term is the one that is used for both items, and its meaning is what is common to the two terms of the opposition. A famous example is the distinction between lion and lioness. In sentences such as the lion and the lioness were hunting together, there is a gender contrast between the two terms, which is neutralized in sentences such as we saw a group of lions in the grass, since the group may well contain both males and females. So the unmarked term lion refers to what is common to lion and lioness. Let's now turn our attention to hyponomy. Hyponomy is a hierarchical sense relationship between lexical items based on the notion of inclusion. A less general term includes the meaning of a more general term. The less general term is called the hyponym. So ant fly and bee are hyponyms to insect, fruit fly, blue fly and brown fly are hyponyms to fly. The more general term is known as the superordinate term or the hyperonym. So the concept insect is the hyperonym to fly. The concept fly is the hyperonym to blue fly and all the other flies. The set of hyponyms, which have the same superordinate term, the same hyperonym are referred to as co-hyperonyms. Whereas their vertical relationship with a hyperonym is one of inclusion. So fly includes insect, bee includes insect and includes insect. Their horizontal relationship is one of incompatibility. Blue fly is incompatible with brown fly and is incompatible with bee. Hyponomy can be defined as a transitive relationship. For example, if A is a hyponym of bee and B is a hyponym of C, then necessarily A is also a hyponym of C. So with our concepts, brown fly is a hyponym of fly, fly is a hyponym of insect. So brown fly is a hyponym of insect. This relationship can also be defined in terms of entailment, something which we will address in our e-lectures on sentence semantics. Oddly, there are some terms, some sets of terms, for example the color words for which no superordinate term, no hyperonym can be found. And then some linguists include the relationship of synonymy within hyponymy and define it as symmetric hyponymy, where A is a hyponym of bee and B one of A. Let's finally look at our last relationship, the relationship of myronomy. Now like hyponymy, myronomy is a sense relation based on the notion of inclusion. This is why some linguists subsume it under the heading of hyponymy. Myronomy describes a part-whole relationship between lexical items.  So nose and mouth can be regarded as maronyms of face, where face itself is the hollownum. There are at least two kinds of myronomy. Functional myronomy, where the parts are detachable from the hole. So wings are theoretically detachable from an aircraft, as you know the effect would be a disaster. And then we have continuous myronomy, where part and whole constitute an inseparable or continuous hole. So the flames cannot really be detached from fire. Myronomy is, as I already said, similar to hyponymy in that it reflects a hierarchical relationship between lexical items. However, myronomy is not inclusion as a hole, but in terms of part-whole relationships. A fly is not a part of an insect and a nose is not a kind of face. Well, let us summarize. This e-lecture cannot handle all details of sense relations. For example, we only mentioned but did not discuss the various types of synonymy. However, as an overview and in some cases as a precise treatment of sense relations, this e-lecture may suffice. The next question we have to address is how do we bring reference and sense together and how do we formalize these aspects of word meaning? The answer to this question will be given in our e-lecture, Theories of Word Meaning, where I hope to see you again. Until then, have a nice time.