On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 1:04 PM,= .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:

"The space of meanings for a brivla must be connecte= d, continuous, and smooth."

.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 delibe= ration
>> > and by somepony knowledgeable about all the considerations th= at apply.
>>
>> > (CLL 4.7)" Yes, and because of "djartako", run= ning 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 s= ay
> 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 octu= pus.
> J notices clash, tells M
> (The Policy)=A0They discuss things and hammer out a solution, one of:<= br> >
> Our definitions are similar enough, let's combine them into the sa= me word.
> (see gejyspa)
> Our definitions are wildly different. Let's add optional rafsi tha= t clarify
> the meaning either by meaning or by cultural heritage. (Optional in th= e
> sense that you may use {djartako} when context makes the meaning clear= .)
> Our definitions disagree, and we really have a long word already. (not= the
> case here) Let's arbitrarily make up a distinction, maybe by chang= ing a
> random character. (I thoroughly dislike this option)
>
> Much rejoicing.
>
> This is just how I see options for the policy could run. Does anyone h= ave
> additions?
>
> Also, back to fixing the CLL, correct me if I'm wrong, but either = we simply
> 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)= and
> 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 h= ave more than
> one definition is something like: "The space of meanings for a br= ivla must
> be connected, continuous, and smooth."
> Though clearly more of a mathy definition than linguistic, it serves m= y
> purposes well. By "space" I imagine a set-like object sittin= g inside the
> space of all possible meanings, where different meanings have varying<= br> > likelihoods of being correctly described with the word being defined.<= br> > "Continuous" and "smooth" are just ruling out blat= antly terrible definition
> structures, things like "You may use {facki} for any type of find= ing, except
> for finding Russians. For that, use <arbitrary_word_here>."= I imagine the
> space of this terrible facki definition would be smooth, continuous, a= nd
> pretty, excepting a blatant hole violently ripped out of the middle of= it.
> The important part,=A0relevant=A0to our discussion here, in "conn= ected." By
> this, I mean that if a meaning must be clarified with multiple descrip= tions,
> 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 providin= g 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 statement prior, (as demonstrated by tsani=A0with {lo= ka
> makau se zvati ce'u},) and so it's not providing an unconnecte= d 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 "provide
> more than one definition" or is particularly terrible.
> Compare this to, say, the definition of cramp. Like many English words= , it
> has multiple part of speech meanings that have been spreading apart ov= er the
> years, and even within one part of speech, there are definitions that<= br> > actually are disconnected. Sorry for the cultural necessity here, but<= br> > 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=A0wr= iter's cramp
>> 3
>> a=A0:=A0sharp abdominal pain =97usually used in pluralb=A0:=A0pers= istent and often
>> intense though dull lower abdominal pain associated with dysmenorr= hea
>> =97usually used in plural
>
> are each actually separate things, not different subexamples. Here'= ;s a few
> checks to prove it:
>
> A) Which definition above is the most general? (1) looks good, but it<= br> > doesn't involve the paralysis necessary in (2). There is no genera= l
> definition, just a few (arguably two) disconnected meaning spaces.
>
> B) Imagine a case where you use each definition. This 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) writing in class and= my
> hoof cramps (3) having very specific symptoms that I don't have mu= ch
> experience with. Now, imagine that each situation had a separate word,= and
> you tried to use the wrong word to describe the situation. For instanc= e, if
> I said I woke up in the middle of the night with my leg cramping, but = I used
> 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 o= f
> spasming. Thus, (2) is not a subset of (1). (3), I don't really kn= ow about.
>
> The point of all of this is that Lojban definitions of words shouldn&#= 39;t have
> this trouble at all. You should be able to interpret a Lojban definiti= on
> with one general idea, with maybe a few narrowing or broadening
> specifications, not a collection of separate examples. Which is why I<= br> > actually read/interpret Lojban definitions differently than English on= es. 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 = each
> 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 Gro= ups
> "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+unsubs= cribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.

--
mu'o mi'e .arpis.

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

To post to this group, send e= mail to lojban@googlegroups.com<= /a>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.