=A0 Your lojban is fine (although I'd use the simpler = "pamei" for "singleton"). =A0But I guess what I am curi= ous about is your distinction between the two terms. =A0It seems to me that= you asserting that the difference is that one has a central meaning that i= s in use in many cases, whereas the other always refers to the non-central = meanings. I'm not sure that is any kind of distinction that makes sense= in lojban. =A0But every word in lojban has penumbras of meaning. =A0For ex= ample, if I talk of a bolci, am I referring to golf ball or a basketball? = =A0Does it matter? =A0In truth, I don't think there can ever be such a = thing as a "precise" meaning to a word in any language, because a= ll language is are a way of classifying the universe/ideas. =A0You can draw= boundaries as small as you like to say what's inside one group as oppo= sosed to oustside, but you can always draw other boundaries tighter or more= relaxed.

=A0 =A0 =A0So, bottom line is "don't worry too much= about it"

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0My two cent= s,=A0

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0--gejyspa

On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 2:45 PM, .arpis. <rp= glover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:

I've been wonderin= g about this for a while (and may have asked before, but I don't recall= being answered): where is the border between the two, and how does lojban = address it?

{mi pu ze'a pensi la'e di'e (to ji'a ju'o cu'i mi p= u te preti .i ku'i na morji lo du'u dafsku toi) .i fi ma sepli fa l= o za'e sorsmu [to'i zo'oi polysemy toi] lo za'e smug= ri [to'i zo'oi clustering toi] .ije ma la'e di'u dan= fu ci'e la .lojban.}

(Incidentally to my question, I would appreciate = input on my lojban.)

I will illustrate with an example: t= he word "singleton" can mean "a set with exactly one element= ", "a single entity which makes all decisions", "an obj= ect (in the CS sense) which is only instantiated once", or "a typ= e which has only one value"; I observe that all of these senses are sp= ecial cases of the first (sometimes implicitly {se}-ed), but when I hear th= e word, I know that it refers to one of those and not, for example, "t= he only person who sleeps in a particular bed".

Obviously, part of this is context, but it feels to me like = there's a difference between the context of the conversation and the co= ntext of the society. It would feel silly and facetious for me to say (pret= ending for a moment that {selte'i} is an adequate translation of "= singleton") {mi selte'i lo ka sipna ti noi ckana}, even if it'= s technically true.

Uncommon words seem to take on a clustered, though not quite= polysemous, definition: "It means this in the most general case, but = it probably is being used for one of these more specific cases."

Anyone have any thoughts? Apologies for any incoh= erence... it sounded better in my head.

--
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 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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.