[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Homonyms in Stage 3 fu'ivla

> "Stage 4 fu'ivla require running tests that are not simple to
> characterize or perform, and should be made only after deliberation
> and by somepony knowledgeable about all the considerations that apply.
> (CLL 4.7)" Yes, and because of "djartako", running tests must be
> applied also to Stage 3 fu'ivla.

I think you've found a bug in the Book, and it should be fixed in the next 
edition.

hmm... do you (ro do) think this is a bug in that the CLL should not say that, or that the system for Stage 3 is bugged?
Personally, I see this like so:
  1. Person M loves tacos. M defines {djartako} to refer to tacos. M uses {djartako} with all his friends.
  2. Person J loves octopus shashimi. J defines {djartako} to refer to octupus.
  3. J notices clash, tells M
  4. (The Policy) They discuss things and hammer out a solution, one of:
  5. Much rejoicing.
This is just how I see options for the policy could run. Does anyone have additions?

Also, back to fixing the CLL, correct me if I'm wrong, but either we simply need to alter the originally quoted error and add text about a policy, or we decide that the system for constructing Stage 3 is at fault (unlikely) and go and do heavy rewrites. IMHO, I don't see why this would warrant the latter, huge rewrites.

.i ta'o

 Of course, it's sheer nonsense to claim that brivla can't have more
than one definition.  See "facki" for example.

How I've always chosen to define the claim that brivla can't have more than one definition is something like: "The space of meanings for a brivla must be connected, continuous, and smooth."
Though clearly more of a mathy definition than linguistic, it serves my purposes well. By "space" I imagine a set-like object sitting inside the space of all possible meanings, where different meanings have varying likelihoods of being correctly described with the word being defined. "Continuous" and "smooth" are just ruling out blatantly terrible definition structures, things like "You may use {facki} for any type of finding, except for finding Russians. For that, use <arbitrary_word_here>." I imagine the space of this terrible facki definition would be smooth, continuous, and pretty, excepting a blatant hole violently ripped out of the middle of it. The important part, relevant to our discussion here, in "connected." By this, I mean that if a meaning must be clarified with multiple descriptions, these descriptions are only allowed to either narrow down the meaning or broaden it, not add a separate one. In this idea, for instance, the definition of {facki} is perfectly fine:
x1 discovers/finds out x2 (du'u) about subject/object x3
x1 finds (fi) x3 (object)
The second statement serves to offer a syntactical benefit by providing a default x2 (when providing an x3) that forces this particular meaning. The meaning provided by the second statement is entirely contained within the far more general statement prior, (as demonstrated by tsani with {lo ka makau se zvati ce'u},) and so it's not providing an unconnected meaning, just a helpful shorthand for a special case. Given, the choice for the default x2 is borderline malglico IMO, but I also think it doesn't "provide more than one definition" or is particularly terrible.
Compare this to, say, the definition of cramp. Like many English words, it has multiple part of speech meanings that have been spreading apart over the years, and even within one part of speech, there are definitions that actually are disconnected. Sorry for the cultural necessity here, but English speakers know that the three noun definitions:
1: a painful involuntary spasmodic contraction of a muscle
2 
: a temporary paralysis of muscles from overuse — compare writer's cramp
3
a : sharp abdominal pain —usually used in pluralb : persistent and often intense though dull lower abdominal pain associated with dysmenorrhea —usually used in plural
are each actually separate things, not different subexamples. Here's a few checks to prove it:

A) Which definition above is the most general? (1) looks good, but it doesn't involve the paralysis necessary in (2). There is no general definition, just a few (arguably two) disconnected meaning spaces. 

B) Imagine a case where you use each definition. This isn't like a sentence or a conversation, but the situation. For instance, for me, I think of (1) waking up cramping in the middle of the night (2) writing in class and my hoof cramps (3) having very specific symptoms that I don't have much experience with. Now, imagine that each situation had a separate word, and you tried to use the wrong word to describe the situation. For instance, if I said I woke up in the middle of the night with my leg cramping, but I used the word for (2), then someone listening would wonder how on earth I overused my leg while I was asleep. Thus, (1) is not a subset of (2). If I described my hand cramping using (1), there'd be a distinct lack of spasming. Thus, (2) is not a subset of (1). (3), I don't really know about.

The point of all of this is that Lojban definitions of words shouldn't have this trouble at all. You should be able to interpret a Lojban definition with one general idea, with maybe a few narrowing or broadening specifications, not a collection of separate examples. Which is why I actually read/interpret Lojban definitions differently than English ones. I read Lojban defs trying to keep one idea at stake and using additional information only to mold that one idea; I read English ones expecting each def to provide at least a semi-unique usage, which I append to a list of ideas attached to that word.

.i ta'onai
Sorry about that long tangent!

djandus

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/NPDNzpRr6uUJ.
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.