https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/derecho#Spanish https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/direito https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/diritto https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/sinister#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dexter#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/laevus#Latin https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BB%CE%B1%CE%B9%CF%8C%CF%8... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/recht#German
and many languages related to these. Some Slavic languages have a close cognate between words meaning 'right (direction)' and words meaning 'right (correct)', although I didn't immediately find examples in current use on Wiktionary where the two forms are identical. A "dated" example is Polish
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/prawy#Polish
Edit: a Finnish friend pointed out that this works in Finnish, which is European but not related to any of the other languages above.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/oikea#Finnish
I don't know if these linguistic phenomena definitely occur in non-European languages, but I think that many people in the Middle East, many parts of Africa, and South Asia consider the left hand unlucky or impure not only because it's weaker in most people but also because it's conventionally used when going to the toilet. It would be a little surprising to me if that attitude didn't show up in languages from those places too.
Edit: it looks like it works in Arabic too
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B4%D9%85%D8%A7%D9%84#Arab... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D9%8A%D8%B3%D8%B1#Arab... https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%A3%D9%8A%D9%85%D9%86#Arab...
Can a language map all it's concepts to words and other concepts defined by just words.
Is there some sort of Godel's incompleteness theorem for language?
I don't see why natural language would have this property. It is certainly possible to construct codes such that the distribution over codewords does not have this property.
I'm amazed that what the paper shows even works.
Can you think of one in english (or your native language)? You won't find it in any dictionary, since all those words have descriptions in terms of other words.
I would have thought that they needed to 'ground' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbol_grounding_problem) at least one shared reference word/concept so they could proceed to define everything relative to that and thereby communicate effectively and know how to map different languages to the same latent space. But I guess perhaps one can infer/approximate it statistically -- https://cis.upenn.edu/~ccb/publications/discriminative-bilin...
With monolingual corpora and no semantic grounding, all you can say is that certain words (or letters, morphemes, or whatever) covary in certain ways that are similar to the ways in which other words covary in the other language. It's super interesting that this is enough to identify some translation pairs across languages.