Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_2); 5 Dec 2001 02:37:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 38733 invoked from network); 5 Dec 2001 02:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Dec 2001 02:37:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d07.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.39) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Dec 2001 02:37:30 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-d07.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.9.) id r.13f.59d807a (4505) for ; Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:37:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <13f.59d807a.293ee25f@aol.com> Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 21:37:19 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: thoughts on numerical language To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_13f.59d807a.293ee25f_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12470 Content-Length: 3237 Lines: 65 --part1_13f.59d807a.293ee25f_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/4/2001 6:05:56 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes: > In the end, the quickness of expressions determines what gets > expressed, too (isn't that Zipf?). > Not really. At most it would be that what is most shortly expressed gets said most, but even that is not quite right -- and is wrong way 'round. As can anything with a bit of ingenuity. What is the point here? Well, now we have gone beyond language to including the thing itself (yes, I know that the picture, nor the jpeg (or whatever) of the picture is not strictly the thing itself but it fails to be in a rather different way that a linguistic reference or a linguistic description fail to be -- and a way closer to the thing). I don't mind illustrated text, but I think calling the illustration a part of the text is pushing terminology a bit too far. --part1_13f.59d807a.293ee25f_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 12/4/2001 6:05:56 PM Central Standard Time, thinkit8@lycos.com writes:


In the end, the quickness of expressions determines what gets
expressed, too (isn't that Zipf?).


Not really.  At most it would be that what is most shortly expressed gets said most, but even that is not quite right -- and is wrong way 'round.

<Viewed numerically, a typical phonology can be
thought of as a mixed base number perhaps>

As can anything with a bit of ingenuity.  What is the point here?

<I think it will differentiate itself when you start looking at
things that are just too cumbursome that they are never expressed in
a human language.  For example, in a binary language it's easy to
imbed something like a bitmap to directly describe a flat picture
(or indeed any flat bit string, like a DSD sound).>

Well, now we have gone beyond language to including the thing itself (yes, I know that the picture, nor the jpeg (or whatever) of the picture is not strictly the thing itself but it fails to be in a rather different way that a linguistic reference or a linguistic description fail to be -- and a way closer to the thing).  I don't mind illustrated text, but I think calling the illustration a part of the text is pushing terminology a bit too far.


 --part1_13f.59d807a.293ee25f_boundary--