From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhDovejlBBoEY_HGIA@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 16 14:53:58 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P7EhP-0006CA-Hu; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:58 -0700 Received: by ywo7 with SMTP id 7sf1076408ywo.16 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=eCQaXQNiLQPQRN75DqPLZZDjZtMKctBbV9ihxcBin7E=; b=iwAqYKyaedLGYcm956koDYtUyfyw2dz825gbHW/gl3X9ZHhHIXvQqXRoiV41MG5wnA 7KeR4chESNtvfENjpcVvJKeeoSHwSdVi71KJbTWBurvVWuGm0M8tEb5/e4/pbpO8WgZM U2hhBDBcRYPmWuFv/vXjTkT1eLEPtPF66eH6w= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=lwqJcTZyE8GxbC1+GZ4Xq6UwgkVXKjIDsL824xfDLRc2LjHFaf3WMILPXIM55kVOra NyHMffsh+0sym2obDQ1x35qnxLRvby1LjAxDzlEqfu0PkVuk23PI5IabKfyfWgTAyyUZ GDCBIX6AS4H9YbT7X7vdwFGDWiDx/8mRc0YRI= Received: by 10.90.32.2 with SMTP id f2mr48955agf.39.1287266024206; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:44 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls3064136ibr.2.p; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.10.132 with SMTP id p4mr1547625ibp.1.1287266023425; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.10.132 with SMTP id p4mr1547624ibp.1.1287266023354; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f179.google.com (mail-iw0-f179.google.com [209.85.214.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id cm31si8835363ibb.3.2010.10.16.14.53.42; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.179; Received: by iwn9 with SMTP id 9so1831774iwn.10 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.160.17 with SMTP id l17mr1932290ibx.102.1287266019335; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.208.15 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:53:39 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 15:53:39 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] on ambiguity From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.179 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=005045015751d05cbd0492c2f956 --005045015751d05cbd0492c2f956 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I am sorry for using the word "wrong". Jeez. I am not at all against semantic ambiguity - I do it myself, all the time, on purpose. Pretty much everything I express in Lojban leaves as much up to context as possible. On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Remo Dentato wrote: > The discussion about the sentence: "la .alis. sipna le ri kumfa" > triggered a thought that, I realized, was lingering in my mind for > quite some time. > > One thing that I really like about Lojban is that it is syntactically > unambiguous but can be semantically ambiguous at will. > > The key point here is "at will". The speaker can choose to structure a > phrase in a certain way to (try to) convey a certain meaning or > emotion to the the listener. > > Still I see many suggesting or implying that any ambiguity is an > abomination and should be avoided at all cost. I don't subscribe this > point of view. > > I would say that the only "wrong" sentences are those that are not > grammatical, all the others can be "non-sensical" or "ambiguous" but > they are not "wrong". > > Since it is grammatical to add a sumti after the ones that have a > definite meaning, the sentence above is "correct". > > From a semantic point of view I really think that nobody could have a > problem in understanding the implied relationship between "sleeping" > and "room" and so the sentence seems perfectly fine to me. Yes I can't > be 100% sure that Alice slept in that room but that would be a very > special case. Adding {ne'i} would surely reduce the ambiguity but the > difference to me would be really minimal. > > As I said, the speaker may decide to take the risk of being > misunderstood and I think his choice should be respected rather than > pointed out as "wrong". > > What I feel strange is that we, as Lojbanist, ask people that learn > the language to be so flexible and sophisticated to understand things > like abstractions and the space/time tenses, to to be able to pick > the appropriate meaning of a gismu like {pastu} (is it a gown or a > cloak?) and we complain if there's any little ambiguity. After all we > have the wonderful {zo'e} and {zu'i} that clearly *require* the > listener to be active. > > Here it is, that is what I like of Lojban. It requires *active* > listeners! Not just passive word-by-word receptacles. Sometimes I > feel we put too many limits on ourselves under the assumption that the > listener will be too dumb to figure out by him/her-self what we are > talking about. > > Some form of ambiguity is necessary while writing to build a climax. > We can't just tell a detective story by telling who's the murderer, we > need to throw a suggestion here and a suggestion there playing with > the words. > > The sentence about {sipna} was just an example, I realized that I > wanted to share my feeling toward an attitude that I think I spotted > in the community. > > remo > > -- > 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@googlegroups.com > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. > > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en. --005045015751d05cbd0492c2f956 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I am sorry for using the word "wrong". Jeez. I am not at all agai= nst semantic ambiguity - I do it myself, all the time, on purpose. Pretty m= uch everything I express in Lojban leaves as much up to context as possible= .

On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 4:26 AM, Remo Dentat= o <rdentato@gmai= l.com> wrote:
The discussion about the sentence: "la .alis. sipna le ri kumfa"<= br> triggered a thought that, I realized, was lingering in my mind for
quite some time.

One thing that I really like about Lojban is that it is syntactically
unambiguous but can be semantically ambiguous at will.

The key point here is "at will". The speaker can choose to struct= ure a
phrase in a certain way to (try to) convey a certain meaning or
emotion to the the listener.

Still I see many suggesting or implying that any ambiguity is an
abomination and should be avoided at all cost. =A0I don't subscribe thi= s
point of view.

I would say that the only "wrong" sentences are those that are no= t
grammatical, all the others can be "non-sensical" or "ambigu= ous" but
they are not "wrong".

Since it is grammatical to add a sumti after the ones that have a
definite meaning, the sentence above is "correct".

From a semantic point of view I really think that nobody could have a
problem in understanding the implied relationship between "sleeping&qu= ot;
and "room" and so the sentence seems perfectly fine to me. Yes I = can't
be 100% sure that Alice slept in that room but that would be a very
special case. Adding {ne'i} would surely reduce the ambiguity but the difference to me would be really minimal.

As I said, the speaker may decide to take the risk of being
misunderstood and I think his choice should be respected rather than
pointed out as "wrong".

What I feel strange is that we, as Lojbanist, ask people that learn
the language to be so flexible and sophisticated to understand things
like abstractions and the space/time tenses, =A0to to be able to pick
the appropriate meaning of a gismu like {pastu} (is it a gown or a
cloak?) and we complain if there's any little ambiguity. After all we have the wonderful {zo'e} and {zu'i} that clearly *require* the
listener to be active.

Here it is, that is what I like of Lojban. It requires *active*
listeners! Not just passive word-by-word receptacles. =A0Sometimes I
feel we put too many limits on ourselves under the assumption that the
listener will be too dumb to figure out by him/her-self what we are
talking about.

Some form of ambiguity is necessary while writing to build a climax.
We can't just tell a detective story by telling who's the murderer,= we
need to throw a suggestion here and a suggestion there playing with
the words.

The sentence about {sipna} was just an example, I realized that I
wanted to share my feeling toward an attitude that I think I spotted
in the community.

remo

--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi'= e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa= bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am y= our father. :D )

--
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.
--005045015751d05cbd0492c2f956--