From pycyn@aol.com Thu Oct 19 14:40:27 2000
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@egroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-6_1_0); 19 Oct 2000 21:40:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 31416 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2000 21:37:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m3.onelist.org with QMQP; 19 Oct 2000 21:37:00 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mail.aol.com) (152.163.225.4) by mta3 with SMTP; 19 Oct 2000 21:37:00 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v28.31.) id a.b8.cb1111d (3926) for <lojban@egroups.com>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:36:48 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <b8.cb1111d.2720c370@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 17:36:48 EDT
Subject: RE:literalism
To: lojban@egroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Windows AOL sub 41
From: pycyn@aol.com

xod:
<<Enamored with grammatic unambiguity, jboka'e also often reach for semantic
unambiguity. But while the former can be proven with yacc rules, the
latter is and always will be completely subjective. And in subjectivity,
the shortest distance is often a rambling line, not a straight one.>>
It isn't even unambiguity (any way to get there is an unambiguous as another, 
once you get there), but a predetermined notion of what means are appropriate 
for forming compounds -- and tanru (against xod's later remark that thse 
somehow are to be dealt with differently).