Received: from mail-iy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.210.189]:64669)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCOib25n_BhC6r-76BBoEPMkkLw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1S6Qez-0005V2-Ba; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:59 -0800
Received: by iahk25 with SMTP id k25sf3692547iah.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:47 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references
         :from:date:message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=rlDjqKOslYD81zYP5+aW9h+WQCpoMZRwej6UG4sZ3qg=;
        b=z9+E0SRDj8pDhk/C4hXgEh3Clb2GJ5+juBP6d2rS4Qu82PUY9zwkswr0Kas8i5BywY
         K7UAHCv6wYhwSxpxHNd21i+1EVq4NOX/+u6NnciNRyJOsVQPnFzs3PaBQgrCPXBj6aUD
         hbLxwycNer88KAbO+ebu5eOvyJtWNkfWXilFg=
Received: by 10.50.135.5 with SMTP id po5mr1961069igb.1.1331402682204;
        Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:42 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.231.29.8 with SMTP id o8ls9609057ibc.6.gmail; Sat, 10 Mar 2012
 10:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.117.132 with SMTP id fm4mr3271856icc.1.1331402681420;
        Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.43.117.132 with SMTP id fm4mr3271855icc.1.1331402681408;
        Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-iy0-f180.google.com (mail-iy0-f180.google.com [209.85.210.180])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dm4si2856355igb.2.2012.03.10.10.04.41
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.180 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.180;
Received: by mail-iy0-f180.google.com with SMTP id e36so4016664iag.25
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.182.159.65 with SMTP id xa1mr2607574obb.25.1331402681301; Sat,
 10 Mar 2012 10:04:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.182.153.68 with HTTP; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 10:04:21 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <15901554.2572.1331394960664.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjd19>
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>
 <15901554.2572.1331394960664.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynjd19>
From: ".arpis." <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 13:04:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CALm==BUTsABS6nF8sPW1Es2RXb+Jqqbu6t18v=uxbcApOSOUww@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Homonyms in Stage 3 fu'ivla
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: rpglover64@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of rpglover64@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.180 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=rpglover64@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>
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: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

"The space of meanings for a brivla must be connected, continuous, and smoo=
th."
.u'i .ie sai

On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM, djandus <jandew@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "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
>> next
>> edition.
>
> 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?
> Personally, I see this like so:
>
> Person M loves tacos. M defines {djartako} to refer to tacos. M uses
> {djartako} with all his friends.
> Person J loves octopus shashimi. J defines {djartako} to refer to octupus=
.
> J notices clash, tells M
> (The Policy)=A0They discuss things and hammer out a solution, one of:
>
> Our definitions are similar enough, let's combine them into the same word=
.
> (see gejyspa)
> Our definitions are wildly different. Let's add optional rafsi that clari=
fy
> the meaning either by meaning or by cultural heritage. (Optional in the
> sense that you may use {djartako} when context makes the meaning clear.)
> Our definitions disagree, and we really have a long word already. (not th=
e
> case here) Let's arbitrarily make up a distinction, maybe by changing a
> random character. (I thoroughly dislike this option)
>
> Much rejoicing.
>
> This is just how I see options for the policy could run. Does anyone have
> additions?
>
> Also, back to fixing the CLL, correct me if I'm wrong, but either we simp=
ly
> need to alter the originally quoted error and add text about a policy, or=
 we
> decide that the system for constructing Stage 3 is at fault (unlikely) an=
d
> go and do heavy rewrites. IMHO, I don't see why this would warrant the
> latter, huge rewrites.
>
> .i ta'o
>
>> =A0Of course, it's sheer nonsense to claim that brivla can't have more
>> than one definition. =A0See "facki" for example.
>
>
> How I've always chosen to define the claim that brivla can't have more th=
an
> one definition is something like: "The space of meanings for a brivla mus=
t
> be connected, continuous, and smooth."
> Though clearly more of a mathy definition than linguistic, it serves my
> purposes well. By "space" I imagine a set-like object sitting inside the
> space of all possible meanings, where different meanings have varying
> likelihoods of being correctly described with the word being defined.
> "Continuous" and "smooth" are just ruling out blatantly terrible definiti=
on
> structures, things like "You may use {facki} for any type of finding, exc=
ept
> for finding Russians. For that, use <arbitrary_word_here>." I imagine 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,=A0relevant=A0to our discussion here, in "connected." =
By
> this, I mean that if a meaning must be clarified with multiple descriptio=
ns,
> 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:
>>
>> 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
> default x2 (when providing an x3) that forces this particular meaning. Th=
e
> meaning provided by the second statement is entirely contained within the
> far more general statement prior, (as demonstrated by tsani=A0with {lo ka
> makau se zvati ce'u},) and so it's not providing an unconnected meaning,
> just a helpful shorthand for a special case. Given, the choice for the
> default x2 is=A0borderline malglico IMO, but I also think it doesn't "pro=
vide
> more than one definition" or is particularly terrible.
> Compare this to, say, the definition of cramp. Like many English words, i=
t
> has multiple part of speech meanings that have been spreading apart over =
the
> years, and even within one part of speech, there are definitions that
> actually are disconnected. Sorry for the cultural necessity here, but
> English speakers know that the three noun definitions:
>>
>> 1:=A0a painful involuntary spasmodic contraction of a muscle
>> 2
>>
>> :=A0a temporary paralysis of muscles from overuse =97 compare=A0writer's=
 cramp
>> 3
>> a=A0:=A0sharp abdominal pain =97usually used in pluralb=A0:=A0persistent=
 and often
>> intense though dull lower abdominal pain associated with dysmenorrhea
>> =97usually used in plural
>
> are each actually separate things, not different subexamples. Here's a fe=
w
> checks to prove it:
>
> 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.
>
> B) Imagine a case where you use each definition. This isn't like a senten=
ce
> or a conversation, but the situation. For instance, for me, I think of (1=
)
> waking up cramping in the middle of the night (2) writing 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 separate word, an=
d
> 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 cramping, but I u=
sed
> the word for (2), then someone listening would wonder how 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 lack of
> spasming. Thus, (2) is not a subset of (1). (3), I don't really know abou=
t.
>
> The point of all of this is that Lojban definitions of words shouldn't ha=
ve
> this trouble at all. You should be able to interpret a Lojban definition
> with one general idea, with maybe a few narrowing 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 using additional
> information only to mold that one idea; I read English ones expecting eac=
h
> def to provide at least a semi-unique usage, which I append to a list of
> ideas attached to that word.
>
> .i ta'onai
> Sorry about that long tangent!
>
> djandus
>
> --
> 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/lojban/-/NPDNzpRr6uUJ.
>
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.



--=20
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
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.