From cbmvax!uunet!CUVMA.BITNET!LOJBAN Wed Feb 12 19:28:09 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Wed, 12 Feb 92 19:28 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA22947; Wed, 12 Feb 92 19:25:23 EST Received: from cunixf.cc.columbia.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA23253; Wed, 12 Feb 92 17:57:29 -0500 Received: from cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu by cunixf.cc.columbia.edu (5.59/FCB) id AA12019; Wed, 12 Feb 92 17:56:34 EST Message-Id: <9202122256.AA12019@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 5515; Wed, 12 Feb 92 17:55:03 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 7540; Wed, 12 Feb 92 17:53:22 EST Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1992 14:51:15 -0800 Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!MATH.UCLA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!jimc Sender: Lojban list From: cbmvax!uunet!MATH.UCLA.EDU!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!jimc Subject: Specific meanings of words X-To: lojban@cuvma.columbia.edu To: John Cowan , Eric Raymond , Eric Tiedemann Status: RO There has been recently a conversation between And Rosta and Lojbab in which And (and others?) asks for the gismu definitions to be made more specific and Lojbab says that such specificity is impossible, because first the meanings of the words are dynamically negotiated between the users; second the meanings depend greatly on context, as in the hammer example; and third because even without these problems gismu X would have to be defined in terms of gismu Y which, inevitably, would be defined circularly in terms of X. As is well known, I prefer to think of words as well defined. However, I do not exactly disagree with Lojbab's positions. Here is an approach that I have found somewhat useful. It is probably hopeless to prepare text definitions of the gismu that avoid circular usages. However, think of the referent set of a predicate: a list of sets of thus-related objects. For example, the referent set of the predicate "eat" includes: betsy (an elephant) eats peanut #325 betsy eats straw #116432 willie (a monkey) eats peanut #326 willie eats stolen sno-cone #58 and so on for a large but finite number of records in the database. (Some predicates have infinitely many records.) The doctrine is that the definition of "eat" is no more and no less than this referent set (set of records). Any one language user knows a subset of the whole definition. The purpose of language behavior is to transfer records from the speaker to the listener. For example, the kid might not know it, but "that monkey is reaching for your sno-cone". Now the record is in the kid's copy of the database, possibly in time to prevent the theft. Humans are very good at recognizing observed relations as being instances of a particular word. If you see a snail on a leaf it might not be obvious what is happening, but when you see the holes left behind you recognize that the relation you observed belongs in the "eat" referent set. Also, by exchanging phrases (database records), the speakers keep up to date on how each other is grouping events under words. This is the essence of the dynamic renegotiation of meaning that Lojbab discusses. How many places (cases) does each referent set record contain? I see the records as containing many modal places such as time of occurrence, authority, speaker, and so on, which introduce a fairly complete context. It is via context introduced this way that something might normally be just a rock, but might be in the hammer referent set in certain events. By considering referent sets as definitions, we can accomplish several goals: 1. Each user has a specific definition for the word. 2. Dynamic negotiation and individual differences are recognized. 3. Context is recognized explicitly. 4. No circular definitions; no incomprehensible text definitions. Needless to say, the text definitions are still needed as training aids, so they should be as clear as feasible. -- jimc