Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

[John E Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com>]

In fact, OOP led me to give up programming altogether, since mydecades of 
training in step by step production did not shift over to the new approach.  But 
I understand the notion of inheritance perfectly well in a normal sense.  I have 
trouble talking about semantics outside a well-formed context, which this all 
lacks, but I get the general idea: you want to blend into one meaning structure 
elements from several others (that is one meaning of AND covered by "in almost 
any sense"), probably including not only meaning but pragmatic considerations.  
No problem  -- except that it is hard to pull it off getting exactly the effect 
you want..
Your point about continuous semantics (not well illustrated by your examples) 
seems to be that the margins of concepts are fuzzy and fade into their neighbors 
(not a news item).  Your examples show one case of an extreme of this sort -- if 
it really is of this sort rather than two independent coinciding  expressions -- 
and one minimal one (the only significant differece between advertising and 
propaganda is the product peddled).  But I am not clear what that has to do with 
the central problem.
Nothing reminds me of algebraic procedures.
Your historical example is a bit backwards.  Whatever central notion Laozi came 
up with, it was going to be called Dao.  During the Hundred Philosophers. every 
school was attempting to explain Dao and they even had some general ideas about 
what it was, but they differed enormously about the details (even Li and Zhuang 
did, not to mention Kung and Mo at other extremes).  All the meaning generated 
in the debates of the fifth and fourth centuries BCE in China were in the word 
as it was used ordinarily (as far as we can tell from what remains) and 
different schools dragged out and stressed different bits (and usually made 
passing references to the others).  In modern English, those who use it at all 
mainly mean the Dao of Daodejing (with the side knowledge that it also means 
"road".  And they tend to give it a mystical interpretation, which is sorta 
fair, but misses a lot of Li's points, which apply to ordinary folks as well as 
sages.
The usual solution to the word problem (see Laozi above) is to take a word in 
the right area and pump new meaning into it by a lot of propaganda.  The early 
Christians did that with, interestingly, "the Way" (swiped from Stoics and 
Cynics, probably).  So, pick your word and repack it.




----- Original Message ----
From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, July 29, 2011 9:48:17 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Gerunds, infinitives and other technicalities

Be careful, we are not speaking of the logical AND, but the fact that
an object inherits from two classes at the same time.   Even if you
are not an << Escape Landsomist philosopher >> or any other type of
illogical prig of the sort, I guess you can understand the logical
bases of Object-Oriented Programming, and understand that, if I
declare something to be both a Tool and a Toy, I have a Toy+Tool.

We should imho keep in mind we are talking not about syntax, nor pure
logic, but semantics.   The "+" notation I abusively use here does not
mean logical AND, nor arithmetic sum, it is a kind of abbreviation for
"mixing classes together".   And, if some thing was regarded by
society as both a Tool and a Toy, we would be right to call it both
names, and even perhaps both names at the same time.   Don't confuse
logic with semantics...

---

As my point about continua seems not to have been properly understood
(perhaps this is to some extent rather misleading)... let me first
give you two examples taken from a natlang :

1°) 新房, xīn​fáng​, means both "brand new house" AND "bridal chamber".
There's no difficulty in finding a continuum in this : a bridal
chamber is somewhat "used for the first time", so that there is a
vicinity in semantics.   Also, keep in mind that continuum just means
semantics are not discrete, it does not imply they are connected or
simply connected (I assume it is meaningful to use this rather
topological language)...

2°) 宣传画, xuān​chuán​huà​, is both "propaganda poster" AND "advertising
hoarding".  The continuum is quite clear here too, isn't it ?   And
why should it not be so ?    I DON'T MEAN propaganda AND advertising
ARE THE SAME THING, but only that you can draw a continuous line from
the former to the latter...

Of course, you could argue that 宣传画, xuān​chuán​huà​, is just
"(psychically imperative) (mediatic piece of information)".  This way
you have collapsed the two extremities of the continuous semantic line
into one single semantic point, that renders the idea of the whole
line.   But this is not always feasible.   Even if it were, some
information would be lost in the process, because "(psychically
imperative) (mediatic piece of information)" could also be some
frenetic tune, which it is not.  So you should say "(non musical
mediatic piece of information)", or rather, perhaps, "(visually iconic
piece of information)".   But then, that's not all, some information
is still lost, and then you should add some more correction, and so
on...   So that defining 宣传画, xuān​chuán​huà as { BOTH "propaganda
poster" AND "advertising hoarding" } is much more true, and even more
handy.

[These remind us of the algebraic process of factoring and expanding a
formula...  Don't they ?]

You should also keep in mind that for "pragmatic reasons" (indeed,
"historical reasons"), it is justified the Chinese use the same term
to refer to propaganda and advertising...   So, the fact that two
different notions are mixed up together, that they are INTRICATED, is
useful !  is practical !  is beneficial even to a logic-oriented mind
!   It is a way of conveying the historical idea that two "historical
events", or two "ideological concepts", or two "philosophical
notions", or whatever, share a priviledged relationship, and that it
is meaningful to tell it.

Suppose I am Lao-zi and I have a deep intuition that something like <<
the Way things are going on >> is AT THE SAME TIME the Rule they obey,
and the Means to achieve enlightenment (or the like), then wouldn't it
be a good move to term some mixed notion as "the Way" in order to
convey this (Way+Rule+Means) meaning ?

So, I will term it 道, dào​, (which is also the Direction, and many
other things, btw).   And it would be great !

But, as a lojbanist, what should I do ?   Saying some "sum" as
(Direction+Way+Rule+Order+Means) ?  Or saying some new word, a
neologism just created on-the-spot ?   Both solutions seems to me
unsatisfactory.   The "sum" solution is not that good, for one never
knows the precise import of a philosophical notion : it extends much
more than its first definition (for instance, in Spinoza's "ETHICS",
"infinitely many" is first given some precise definition, but then,
long after, it is used in a slightly different acception, AND THIS IS
THE RIGHT THING TO BE DONE)...   Either the creator of the notion
lists all of the semantic import of the new term, but thus "kills" its
generative creativity by giving it an excessively-precise
determination...  or the creator just points at SOME of the semantic
import, but then, the choice is somewhat *arbitrary*.

Creating a neologism is the other solution, but does not seem a too
good solution too, because the relationship between the shape of the
word and its meaning is somewhat lost, --- at least to some extent.

---

So, I don't know what to do...   Assuming there is some X which is
(Question+Questioning+Quest), how should a lojbanist term it ?

-- 
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.

-- 
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.