From cbmvax!uunet!cuvma.bitnet!LOJBAN Mon Feb 17 15:45:25 1992 Return-Path: Received: by snark.thyrsus.com (/\==/\ Smail3.1.21.1 #21.19) id ; Mon, 17 Feb 92 15:45 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA06568; Mon, 17 Feb 92 15:42:29 EST Received: from rutgers.edu by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA11170; Mon, 17 Feb 92 14:41:37 -0500 Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by rutgers.edu (5.59/SMI4.0/RU1.4/3.08) with UUCP id AA16138; Mon, 17 Feb 92 13:40:23 EST Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore 2/8/91) id AA22227; Mon, 17 Feb 92 13:26:55 EST Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (via uunet.UU.NET) by relay1.UU.NET with SMTP (5.61/UUNET-internet-primary) id AA21967; Mon, 17 Feb 92 13:23:38 -0500 Message-Id: <9202171823.AA21967@relay1.UU.NET> Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU (IBM VM SMTP R1.2.1) with BSMTP id 9119; Mon, 17 Feb 92 13:20:13 EST Received: by CUVMB (Mailer R2.07) id 2545; Mon, 17 Feb 92 13:19:48 EST Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1992 18:16:07 +0000 Reply-To: And Rosta Sender: Lojban list From: And Rosta Subject: Re: Specific meanings of words To: John Cowan In-Reply-To: (Your message of Wed, 12 Feb 92 14:51:15 PST.) <42163.9202130025@bas-a.bcc.ac.uk Status: RO Jimc wrote: > 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. > [...] > 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 > The doctrine is that the definition of "eat" is no more and no less than > this referent set (set of records). > [...] > 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. Jim is probably arguing a more doctrinal point than I was, so I won't dispute it. It wasn't clear to me how Jim's system allows degrees of membership of referent sets; obviously (to prototypists) there are clear typical instances of eating, but other instances (e.g. with soup) it's less clear - eating soup is a more marginal instance of eating. On circularity. I was proposing English language 'definitions' in the sense of accurate indications of the meaning of gismu. I didn't mean to suggest gismu meaning should officially be defined in terms of correspondences with English words ("_mlatu_ means the same thing as _cat_")! On context-dependency of meaning. I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise. I wasn't asking for rigid definitions. I'll illustrate my point using _botpi_, which is glossed 'bottle'. Here is its English sense (roughly): * made of glass * form: cylindrical, with neck at one end sealed by cork or cap; no handle * function: container; used for storage rather than preparation or serving Is this the Lojban sense also? Or is it just, say, "sealable container for liquid"? --- And