Re: [lojban] footnotes, etc?

[Felipe Gonçalves Assis <felipeg.assis@gmail.com>]

On 12 March 2012 12:24, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>

Yeah, that was a side comment by me. I did express myself badly when
I said "written text", though, since my point is that there is more to a
written text than spelled utterances.

> 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.
>

We agree on the "choose your own adventure" issue. I only say that
there can still be an isomorphism among speech streams and linear
streams of text such as those who compose the book, or their
possible combinations, as suggested by the physical/typographical
organization of the content.

mu'o
mi'e .asiz.

-- 
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.