Re: [lojban] footnotes, etc?

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

Medium and message again.  A "choose your adventure" book is one text, with options about how much and which parts to read.  As a text, it has the same reading (in however loosely you want to take that), thoug a given performance of that text may be very different from another performance.  Though I dread to bring this up, we seem to be having type-token confusions here as well as script/performance ones.  Each reading of a given text (the same piece of paper, to be on the safe side) is isomorphic to that text (assuming the reading is done right) and so to any other correct reading of it.  The instruments of this isomorphism are the idiosyncrasies of the speaker's voice on this occasion (well, at a deeper level,  there may be phonemic problems as well).  Thus there isn't a completely describable isomorphism between a text and the class of tis performances; the best we can hope for is that there is one for each performance and that all can be summed up in some general terms  ([c] is pronounced like English [sh], and so on).

---

From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 12, 2012 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [lojban] footnotes, etc?

2012/3/12 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
> 2012/3/12 Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>:
>> doi xorxes,
>>
>> Can't you define an equivalence relation among valid written texts,
>> another one among valid speech streams, and then pair-up the
>> equivalence classes?
>>
>> Wouldn't that still be an isomorphism?
>>
>> I understand that the concept is more subtle, but the name is still valid.
>
> OK, as long as it's understood that way, fine. But then what does that
> have to do with the footnotes issue? I'm just saying it is not the
> case that to each speech stream corresponds one spelling and to each
> spelling corresponds one speech stream.

Also, if you want the isomorphism to hold at the level of classes of
texts, then "choose your own adventure" books cannot be translated
into Lojban, since the whole point of them is that one text can be
read in more than one non-equivalent way. So I still say we drop the
"isomorphism" terminology.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.