=A0 Wiki= pedia defines polysemy (as opposed to homonymy) as:

"Charles Fillmore and Beryl Atkins= =92 definition stipulates three elements: (i) the various senses of a polys= emous word have a central origin, (ii) the links between these senses form = a network, and (iii) understanding the =91inner=92 one contributes to under= standing of the =91outer=92 one.^{[3]"

=A0 I'm not sure blazer falls within that definition (at best it=
9;s #1 only). =A0So maybe that's where my confusion lies.
=A0 =A0But I would have no problem with using singleton to mean "=
;the only person who sleeps in a particular bed"

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

On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM, .arpis. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmail.com> wrote:

My best intuition as to the=
difference is (forgive the Haskell programmer in me) whether the meanings =
are parametrically polymorphic or ad-hoc polymorphic. If the possible meani=
ngs of a word are semantically unrelated (the first example that popped int=
o my head was "blazer" =3D "one who blazes" or "li=
ght jacket"), then a word is clearly polysemous, but if the penumbras =
are so intense that a native speaker would be surprised and confused if the=
word is used to refer to something outside one of them, that seems similar=
in practice to the polysemy.

On Wed, Jan 2=
, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Michael Turniansky <mturniansky@gmail.com> wrote:

=A0 Your lojban is fine (al=
though I'd use the simpler "pamei" for "singleton")=
. =A0But I guess what I am curious about is your distinction between the tw=
o terms. =A0It seems to me that you asserting that the difference is that o=
ne has a central meaning that is in use in many cases, whereas the other al=
ways 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 example, if I talk of a bolci, am I referring =
to golf ball or a basketball? =A0Does it matter? =A0In truth, I don't t=
hink there can ever be such a thing as a "precise" meaning to a w=
ord in any language, because all language is are a way of classifying the u=
niverse/ideas. =A0You can draw boundaries as small as you like to say what&=
#39;s inside one group as oppososed to oustside, but you can always draw ot=
her 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. <rpglover64+jbobau@gmai=
l.com> wrote:

=
I've been wondering 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.

--

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.

--
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.

--

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.

--e89a8fb1f6c813f65704d2546020--}