Received: from mail-pz0-f56.google.com ([209.85.210.56]:35607)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCJzE7b_XFxCS8-36BBoEq29dsQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1S6OeS-0004nz-SE; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:56:19 -0800
Received: by dano9 with SMTP id o9sf2911850dan.1
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:56:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject
         :mime-version:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id
         :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe
         :list-unsubscribe:content-type;
        bh=OGZdHqyPtqSd6gOqzbEbNRw0rEaaPi4nyHtdVTCCvIk=;
        b=fRh50wqDTU+46D2frvFnCLVoMraX+tP0p/gm7FrDTjDy7pDEL2C14fp1wDlgb4BRsi
         Uq+qX87WlBUuXghtKQUvZEIX+k0JL6uLsOpIFm4vg02oSa5C/VxqPMfGGtynmc9qA+ao
         cukNCVjsQeti/0vACOf4IDUgjhnuhR1Ulw/4w=
Received: by 10.236.168.36 with SMTP id j24mr786333yhl.3.1331394962864;
        Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:56:02 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.101.170.2 with SMTP id x2ls4727958ano.3.gmail; Sat, 10 Mar
 2012 07:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.236.183.234 with SMTP id q70mr783322yhm.2.1331394961611;
        Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:56:01 -0800 (PST)
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 07:56:00 -0800 (PST)
From: djandus <jandew@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <15901554.2572.1331394960664.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjd19>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDXr8YaRdHCO02KHyoqgcbwpG7XJmvvW8JAHM=UkMLwGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO1AUJMEO+dG2-2MKk5UhoF=VyqoAD-XQnwf063N-1EiO76zzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKOEKkTmx0W9DuAqwuwN4vQCNJk4Xyz8GyvKzb+QZgpANEMuYw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAHiXx=MZserb+7NzEhjp1JP1qGDOFH9mewL1T=BmMAn3Dqu2WQ@mail.gmail.com> <201203091943.33403.jezuch@interia.pl>
 <CAOQ8VDXr8YaRdHCO02KHyoqgcbwpG7XJmvvW8JAHM=UkMLwGfQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Homonyms in Stage 3 fu'ivla
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Original-Sender: jandew@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: ls.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of
 jandew@gmail.com designates internal as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jandew@gmail.com; dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_2571_20917813.1331394960661"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_2571_20917813.1331394960661
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


>
> > "Stage 4 fu'ivla require running tests that are not simple to
> > characterize or perform, and should be made only after deliberation
> > and by somepony knowledgeable about all the considerations that apply.
> > (CLL 4.7)" Yes, and because of "djartako", running tests must be
> > applied also to Stage 3 fu'ivla.
>
> I think you've found a bug in the Book, and it should be fixed in the nex=
t=20
> edition.
>
hmm... do you (ro do) think this is a bug in that the CLL should not say=20
that, or that the system for Stage 3 is bugged?
Personally, I see this like so:

   1. Person M loves tacos. M defines {djartako} to refer to tacos. M uses=
=20
   {djartako} with all his friends.
   2. Person J loves octopus shashimi. J defines {djartako} to refer to=20
   octupus.
   3. J notices clash, tells M
   4. (The Policy) They discuss things and hammer out a solution, one of:
      - Our definitions are similar enough, let's combine them into the=20
      same word. (see gejyspa<https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/uVtffO=
HON8U/2OKULxTqKjkJ>
      )
      - Our definitions are wildly different. Let's add optional rafsi that=
=20
      clarify the meaning either by meaning or by cultural heritage. (Optio=
nal in=20
      the sense that you may use {djartako} when context makes the meaning =
clear.)
      - Our definitions disagree, and we really have a long word already.=
=20
      (not the case here) Let's arbitrarily make up a distinction, maybe by=
=20
      changing a random character. (I thoroughly dislike this option)
   5. Much rejoicing.

This is just how I see options for the policy could run. Does anyone have=
=20
additions?

Also, back to fixing the CLL, correct me if I'm wrong, but either we simply=
=20
need to alter the originally quoted error and add text about a policy, or=
=20
we decide that the system for constructing Stage 3 is at fault (unlikely)=
=20
and go and do heavy rewrites. IMHO, I don't see why this would warrant the=
=20
latter, huge rewrites.

*.i ta'o*

 Of course, it's sheer nonsense to claim that brivla can't have more
> than one definition.  See "facki" for example.
>

How I've always chosen to define the claim that brivla can't have more than=
=20
one definition is something like: "The space of meanings for a brivla must=
=20
be connected, continuous, and smooth."
Though clearly more of a mathy definition than linguistic, it serves my=20
purposes well. By "space" I imagine a set-like object sitting inside the=20
space of all possible meanings, where different meanings have varying=20
likelihoods of being correctly described with the word being defined.=20
"Continuous" and "smooth" are just ruling out blatantly terrible definition=
=20
structures, things like "You may use {facki} for any type of finding,=20
except for finding Russians. For that, use <arbitrary_word_here>." I=20
imagine the space of this terrible facki definition would be smooth,=20
continuous, and pretty, excepting a blatant hole violently ripped out of=20
the middle of it. The important part, relevant to our discussion here, in=
=20
"connected." By this, I mean that if a meaning must be clarified with=20
multiple descriptions, these descriptions are only allowed to either narrow=
=20
down the meaning or broaden it, not add a separate one. In this idea, for=
=20
instance, the definition of {facki} is perfectly fine:

> x1 discovers/finds out x2 (du'u) about subject/object x3
> x1 finds (fi) x3 (object)
>
The second statement serves to offer a syntactical benefit by providing a=
=20
default x2 (when providing an x3) that forces this particular meaning. The=
=20
meaning provided by the second statement is entirely contained within the=
=20
far more general statement prior, (as demonstrated by tsani<https://groups.=
google.com/d/msg/lojban/uVtffOHON8U/jHOz3dAfCQMJ> with=20
{lo ka makau se zvati ce'u},) and so it's not providing an unconnected=20
meaning, just a helpful shorthand for a special case. Given, the choice for=
=20
the default x2 *is* borderline malglico IMO, but I also think it doesn't=20
"provide more than one definition" or is particularly terrible.
Compare this to, say, the definition of cramp<http://www.merriam-webster.co=
m/dictionary/cramp>.=20
Like many English words, it has multiple part of speech meanings that have=
=20
been spreading apart over the years, and even within one part of speech,=20
there are definitions that actually are disconnected. Sorry for the=20
cultural necessity here, but English speakers know that the three noun=20
definitions:

> *1:* a painful involuntary spasmodic contraction of a muscle
> 2=20
>
*:* a temporary paralysis of muscles from overuse =97 compare writer's cram=
p<http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/writer's+cramp>
> 3
> *a* *:* sharp abdominal pain =97usually used in plural*b* *:* persistent=
=20
> and often intense though dull lower abdominal pain associated with=20
> dysmenorrhea =97usually used in plural
>
are each actually separate things, not different subexamples. Here's a few=
=20
checks to prove it:

A) Which definition above is the most general? (1) looks good, but it=20
doesn't involve the paralysis necessary in (2). There is no general=20
definition, just a few (arguably two) disconnected meaning spaces.=20

B) Imagine a case where you use each definition. This isn't like a sentence=
=20
or a conversation, but the situation. For instance, for me, I think of (1)=
=20
waking up cramping in the middle of the night (2) writing in class and my=
=20
hoof cramps (3) having very specific symptoms that I don't have much=20
experience with. Now, imagine that each situation had a separate word, and=
=20
you tried to use the wrong word to describe the situation. For instance, if=
=20
I said I woke up in the middle of the night with my leg cramping, but I=20
used the word for (2), then someone listening would wonder how on earth I=
=20
overused my leg while I was asleep. Thus, (1) is not a subset of (2). If I=
=20
described my hand cramping using (1), there'd be a distinct lack of=20
spasming. Thus, (2) is not a subset of (1). (3), I don't really know about.

The point of all of this is that Lojban definitions of words shouldn't have=
=20
this trouble at all. You should be able to interpret a Lojban definition=20
with one general idea, with maybe a few narrowing or broadening=20
specifications, not a collection of separate examples. Which is why I=20
actually read/interpret Lojban definitions differently than English ones. I=
=20
read Lojban defs trying to keep one idea at stake and using additional=20
information only to mold that one idea; I read English ones expecting each=
=20
def to provide at least a semi-unique usage, which I append to a list of=20
ideas attached to that word.

*.i ta'onai*
Sorry about that long tangent!

djandus

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lo=
jban/-/NPDNzpRr6uUJ.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.


------=_Part_2571_20917813.1331394960661
Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0=
px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-=
left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex=
; "><div class=3D"GNGI45EBEY" style=3D"border-style: initial; border-color:=
 initial; ">&gt; "Stage 4 fu'ivla require running tests that are not simple=
 to<br>&gt; characterize or perform, and should be made only after delibera=
tion<br>&gt; and by somepony knowledgeable about all the considerations tha=
t apply.<br>&gt; (CLL 4.7)" Yes, and because of "djartako", running tests m=
ust be<br>&gt; applied also to Stage 3 fu'ivla.</div><p style=3D"margin-top=
: 1em; border-style: initial; border-color: initial; line-height: normal; "=
>I think you've found a bug in the Book, and it should be fixed in the next=
&nbsp;<br>edition.</p></blockquote><div>hmm... do you (ro do) think this is=
 a bug in that the CLL should not say that, or that the system for Stage 3 =
is bugged?</div><div>Personally, I see this like so:</div><div><ol><li><spa=
n style=3D"line-height: normal;">Person M loves tacos. M defines {djartako}=
 to refer to tacos. M uses {djartako} with all his friends.</span></li><li>=
<span style=3D"line-height: normal;">Person J loves octopus shashimi. J def=
ines {djartako} to refer to octupus.</span></li><li><span style=3D"line-hei=
ght: normal;">J notices clash, tells M</span></li><li><span style=3D"line-h=
eight: normal;">(The Policy)&nbsp;They discuss things and hammer out a solu=
tion, one of:</span></li><ul><li><span style=3D"line-height: normal;">Our d=
efinitions are similar enough, let's combine them into the same word. (see =
<a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/uVtffOHON8U/2OKULxTqKjkJ"=
>gejyspa</a>)</span></li><li><span style=3D"line-height: normal;">Our defin=
itions are wildly different. Let's add optional rafsi that clarify the mean=
ing either by meaning or by cultural heritage. (Optional in the sense that =
you may use {djartako} when context makes the meaning clear.)</span></li><l=
i><span style=3D"line-height: normal;">Our definitions disagree, and we rea=
lly have a long word already. (not the case here) Let's arbitrarily make up=
 a distinction, maybe by changing a random character. (I thoroughly dislike=
 this option)</span></li></ul><li><span style=3D"line-height: normal;">Much=
 rejoicing.</span></li></ol><div>This is just how I see options for the pol=
icy could run. Does anyone have additions?</div><div><br></div><div>Also, b=
ack to fixing the CLL, correct me if I'm wrong, but either we simply need t=
o alter the originally quoted error and add text about a policy, or we deci=
de that the system for constructing Stage 3 is at fault (unlikely) and go a=
nd do heavy rewrites. IMHO, I don't see why this would warrant the latter, =
huge rewrites.</div><div><br></div><div><b><font size=3D"4">.i ta'o</font><=
/b></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-t=
op: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-=
left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: =
solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">&nbsp;Of course, it's sheer nonsense to claim t=
hat brivla can't have more<br>than one definition. &nbsp;See "facki" for ex=
ample.<br></blockquote><br></div><div>How I've always chosen to define the =
claim that brivla can't have more than one definition is something like: "T=
he space of meanings for a brivla must be connected, continuous, and smooth=
."</div><div>Though clearly more of a mathy definition than linguistic, it =
serves my purposes well. By "space" I imagine a set-like object sitting ins=
ide the space of all possible meanings, where different meanings have varyi=
ng likelihoods of being correctly described with the word being defined. "C=
ontinuous" and "smooth" are just ruling out blatantly terrible definition s=
tructures, things like "You may use {facki} for any type of finding, except=
 for finding Russians. For that, use &lt;arbitrary_word_here&gt;." I imagin=
e the space of this terrible facki definition would be smooth, continuous, =
and pretty, excepting a blatant hole violently ripped out of the middle of =
it. The important part,&nbsp;relevant&nbsp;to our discussion here, in "conn=
ected." By this, I mean that if a meaning must be clarified with multiple d=
escriptions, these descriptions are only allowed to either narrow down the =
meaning or broaden it, not add a separate one. In this idea, for instance, =
the definition of {facki} is perfectly fine:</div><blockquote class=3D"gmai=
l_quote" style=3D"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; m=
argin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204,=
 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "><span style=3D"color:=
 rgb(80, 0, 80); ">x1 discovers/finds out x2 (du'u) about subject/object x3=
</span><br style=3D"color: rgb(80, 0, 80); "><span style=3D"color: rgb(80, =
0, 80); ">x1 finds (fi) x3 (object)</span><br></blockquote>The second state=
ment serves to offer a syntactical benefit by providing a default x2 (when =
providing an x3) that forces this particular meaning. The meaning provided =
by the second statement is entirely contained within the far more general s=
tatement prior, (as demonstrated by <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/=
msg/lojban/uVtffOHON8U/jHOz3dAfCQMJ">tsani</a>&nbsp;with {lo ka makau se zv=
ati ce'u},) and so it's not providing an unconnected meaning, just a helpfu=
l shorthand for a special case. Given, the choice for the default x2 <i>is<=
/i>&nbsp;borderline malglico IMO, but I also think it doesn't "provide more=
 than one definition" or is particularly terrible.<div>Compare this to, say=
, the definition of <a href=3D"http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cr=
amp">cramp</a>. Like many English words, it has multiple part of speech mea=
nings that have been spreading apart over the years, and even within one pa=
rt of speech, there are definitions that actually are disconnected. Sorry f=
or the cultural necessity here, but English speakers know that the three no=
un definitions:</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin-top:=
 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-lef=
t-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: sol=
id; padding-left: 1ex; "><div class=3D"sblk" style=3D"font-family: Verdana,=
 Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><d=
iv class=3D"scnt" style=3D"margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; "><span =
class=3D"ssens"><strong>1:</strong>&nbsp;a painful involuntary spasmodic co=
ntraction of a muscle</span></div></div><div class=3D"sblk" style=3D"font-f=
amily: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; color: rgb=
(0, 0, 0); "><div class=3D"snum" style=3D"float: left; font-weight: bold; "=
>2&nbsp;</div></div></blockquote><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D=
"margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex=
; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-lef=
t-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; "><div class=3D"sblk" style=3D"font-fami=
ly: Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; color: rgb(0,=
 0, 0); "><div class=3D"scnt" style=3D"margin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20=
px; "><span class=3D"ssens"><strong>:</strong>&nbsp;a temporary paralysis o=
f muscles from overuse =97 compare&nbsp;<a href=3D"http://www.merriam-webst=
er.com/dictionary/writer's+cramp" style=3D"color: rgb(17, 34, 204); font-si=
ze: 14px; font-variant: small-caps; ">writer's cramp</a></span></div></div>=
<div class=3D"sblk" style=3D"color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Verdana, Ari=
al, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 20px; "><div class=3D"snum" style=
=3D"float: left; font-weight: bold; ">3</div><div class=3D"scnt" style=3D"m=
argin-bottom: 10px; margin-left: 20px; "><span class=3D"ssens"><em class=3D=
"sn" style=3D"font-style: normal; font-weight: bold; ">a</em>&nbsp;<strong>=
:</strong>&nbsp;sharp abdominal pain =97usually used in plural</span><span =
class=3D"ssens"><span class=3D"break" style=3D"display: block; height: 10px=
; "></span><em class=3D"sn" style=3D"font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;=
 ">b</em>&nbsp;<strong>:</strong>&nbsp;persistent and often intense though =
dull lower abdominal pain associated with dysmenorrhea =97usually used in p=
lural</span></div></div></blockquote><div>are each actually separate things=
, not different subexamples. Here's a few checks to prove it:</div><div><br=
></div><div>A) Which definition above is the most general? (1) looks good, =
but it doesn't involve the paralysis necessary in (2). There is no general =
definition, just a few (arguably two) disconnected meaning spaces.&nbsp;</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>B) Imagine a case where you use each definition. Thi=
s isn't like a sentence or a conversation, but the situation. For instance,=
 for me, I think of (1) waking up cramping in the middle of the night (2) w=
riting in class and my hoof cramps (3) having very specific symptoms that I=
 don't have much experience with. Now, imagine that each situation had a se=
parate word, and you tried to use the wrong word to describe the situation.=
 For instance, if I said I woke up in the middle of the night with my leg c=
ramping, but I used the word for (2), then someone listening would wonder h=
ow on earth I overused my leg while I was asleep. Thus, (1) is not a subset=
 of (2). If I described my hand cramping using (1), there'd be a distinct l=
ack of spasming. Thus, (2) is not a subset of (1). (3), I don't really know=
 about.</div><div><br></div><div>The point of all of this is that Lojban de=
finitions of words shouldn't have this trouble at all. You should be able t=
o interpret a Lojban definition with one general idea, with maybe a few nar=
rowing or broadening specifications, not a collection of separate examples.=
 Which is why I actually read/interpret Lojban definitions differently than=
 English ones. I read Lojban defs trying to keep one idea at stake and usin=
g additional information only to mold that one idea; I read English ones ex=
pecting each def to provide at least a semi-unique usage, which I append to=
 a list of ideas attached to that word.</div><div><br></div><div><b>.i ta'o=
nai</b></div><div>Sorry about that long tangent!</div><div><br></div><div>d=
jandus</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/NPDNzpRr6uUJ">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/NP=
DNzpRr6uUJ</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />



------=_Part_2571_20917813.1331394960661--