From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Oct 22 18:21:41 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:21:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N18qV-0000Bc-Jm for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:21:39 -0700 Received: from mail-yw0-f204.google.com ([209.85.211.204]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N18qJ-000090-1B for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:21:34 -0700 Received: by ywh42 with SMTP id 42so140059ywh.28 for ; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:21:08 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=e4YSRNR3QjppxSBinLJHSCiof8dlmi/t+f9VjChmF18=; b=WykD0sgOSSlahiVCWE90QbqL0YftweKm303pYe68op0H8LCdbfrb5Yx/S8UinyBrSP sNfwkX+IMoyfG0TYaYGjXuySTnS3Ck6L92zP4sQ51OlBQwNBCiI3bkXX0t2TD7tzucDN C/cBSP7xlXdsaJaUxv4FSUYNpmj0KZK4kf1Wc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=pbGNWHqWZ7Wb31EV2NaSpcl+rcbmS1ygYG0Gv/m9OKQzfDLjK2fMl8truoZIBSvi64 Xz5kMUYqAnS0sNQcdasIrrdI7OVCojT/FxqAuFIPoR3AMx7Yjmue4RcyB02n2DTqIwGN 4bKsqT7sjPwVjI2of+tHZtPMnxUp8A3J5VAN8= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.150.253.12 with SMTP id a12mr16944130ybi.178.1256260868505; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 18:21:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <925d17560910221606v3b6697f9pacecee1df20b0d5d@mail.gmail.com> References: <5715b9300910221536o6c0b268fr5317e25634f1edc9@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560910221606v3b6697f9pacecee1df20b0d5d@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 21:21:08 -0400 Message-ID: <5715b9300910221821n771ee72au85ef05c3da9913bf@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: vagueness vs ambiguity From: Luke Bergen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd34a14d001ab0476900673 X-archive-position: 16388 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --000e0cd34a14d001ab0476900673 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >(Shouldn't the x2 of kelci be lo selkei rather than lo nunkei?) probably, but {... kelci lo sekelci } seemed... redundant, but I wanted to be able to use {ra} so I needed another sumti between la djim and {ra}. And yeah, you're right, I guess {ra} would refer back to the mass created b= y {la djan joi la djim}. I would want {la djan .e la djan nunkei ...} 2009/10/22 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Luke Bergen > wrote: > > So I've heard people say in the past "lojban is vague, but it is not > > ambiguous". > > Don't believe everything you hear! Lojban is syntactically > unambiguous, which means any grammatical utterance can be parsed in > one and only one way. Semantically unambiguous? I don't think so. > > > But what is the difference exactly? > > An ambiguous sentence is one that can have two or more distinct > meanings, a vague sentence is one that doesn't have a precise meaning. > > > "John and Jim played a game. He lost". I've heard this example used t= o > > explain how english is "ambiguous". But how is this different from {la > djan > > joi la djim kelci lo lo nunkei .i ra toljinga} which I guess is > "ambiguous"? > > Not very different, except I would tend to interpret the last part of > the Lojban as "They lost". > > (Shouldn't the x2 of kelci be lo selkei rather than lo nunkei?) > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.or= g > with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if > you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help. > > --000e0cd34a14d001ab0476900673 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable >(Shouldn't the x2 of kelci be lo selkei rather than lo nunkei?)
=
probably, but {... kelci lo sekelci } seemed... redundant, but I wanted= to be able to use {ra} so I needed another sumti between la djim and {ra}.=

And yeah, you're right, I guess {ra} would refer back to the mass c= reated by {la djan joi la djim}.=A0 I would want {la djan .e la djan nunkei= ...}

2009/10/22 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com= >
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 7:36 PM, Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I've heard people say in the past "lojban is vague, but it= is not
> ambiguous".

Don't believe everything you hear! Lojban is syntactically
unambiguous, which means any grammatical utterance can be parsed in
one and only one way. Semantically unambiguous? I don't think so.

> But what is the difference exactly?

An ambiguous sentence is one that can have two or more distinct
meanings, a vague sentence is one that doesn't have a precise meaning.<= br>

> "John and Jim played a game.=A0 He lost".=A0 I've heard = this example used to
> explain how english is "ambiguous".=A0 But how is this diffe= rent from {la djan
> joi la djim kelci lo lo nunkei .i ra toljinga} which I guess is "= ambiguous"?

Not very different, except I would tend to interpret the last part of=
the Lojban as "They lost".

(Shouldn't the x2 of kelci be lo selkei rather than lo nunkei?)

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.


--000e0cd34a14d001ab0476900673-- To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.