Re: [lojban] English

[david demartin <davidandresloquehay@gmail.com>]

doi escape, so you are saying that there is a special sort of ambiguity (lexical ?), that natural languages have, and that Lojban lacks ?
my understanding is that, with any language (with a reasonable level of sophistication), if you want to make yourself clear about something in particular, you'll eventually get there provided you work at it enough (i.e. you give enough explanations). The idea with artificial languages, is that you can get to just that "right" amount of information in some easier, better way.
the reverse, I think, is also true: if with any language you can eventually say exactly what you want, then probably you can also conceal, or be vague about exactly what you want. It is also about giving just that right amount of info, and not a bit more. So it seems to me you can be pretty efficient at ambiguity with Lojban as well... I would even venture any kind of ambigüity.
 
david

2011/9/27 Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>

I was meaning that in semiotics, it is considered you have a
syntactic, a semantic, and a pragmatic level.

You can have ambiguity in all of these.

Incidentally, syntax is itself connected to lexical matters and
morphology, and these are connected to phonology (some theories mix
them in a whole), so you could also find amibguities in those.

The example you gave is anaphoric ambiguity.    Sure Lojban has
anaphoric ambiguity, its logical-predicate-structure allows it.    Yet
I tend to think a *lexical* ambiguity would be more rarely produced,
-- if ever.

--esc

-- 
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.