[lojban] Re: vagueness vs ambiguity

[Luke Bergen <lukeabergen@gmail.com>]

>(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 by {la djan joi la djim}.  I would want {la djan .e la djan nunkei ...}

2009/10/22 Jorge Llambías <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.

> "John and Jim played a game.  He lost".  I've heard this example used to
> 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.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.