On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 10:56 AM, djandus <
jandew@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > "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:
>
> Person M loves tacos. M defines {djartako} to refer to tacos. M uses
> {djartako} with all his friends.
> Person J loves octopus shashimi. J defines {djartako} to refer to octupus.
> J notices clash, tells M
> (The Policy) They discuss things and hammer out a solution, one of:
>
> Our definitions are similar enough, let's combine them into the same word.
> (see gejyspa)
> Our definitions are wildly different. Let's add optional rafsi that clarify
> the meaning either by meaning or by cultural heritage. (Optional in the
> sense that you may use {djartako} when context makes the meaning clear.)
> Our definitions disagree, and we really have a long word already. (not the
> case here) Let's arbitrarily make up a distinction, maybe by changing a
> random character. (I thoroughly dislike this option)
>
> 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.