The Literal Meaning of Words
Peter Olcott
and from the west, that there is none beside
X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
(X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
change if all the words are left the same, except
for a substitution of what these words apply to?
John O'Flaherty
What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
were lying or not?
--
john
Peter Olcott
"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
what was said corresponds to the truth.
Mike Lyle
We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT mean
"nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES mean
"no other Lord". It will help if you read the context, even if only
that one chapter. The doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is NOT pantheism.
--
Mike.
John O'Flaherty
Peter Olcott wrote:
> "John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131044801.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Peter Olcott wrote:
> >> That they may know from the rising of the sun,
> >> and from the west, that there is none beside
> >> X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
> >> (X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
> >>
> >> From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
> >> Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
> >> change if all the words are left the same, except
> >> for a substitution of what these words apply to?
> >
> > What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they
> > were lying or not?
> That is a whole other issue. It can be determined exactly what was
> being said separately and apart from determining whether or not
> what was said corresponds to the truth.
It's not a separate issue. Maybe the author(s) were just having you on,
seeing how long they could get you to obsess about a statement void of
any real referent.
--
john
Peter Olcott
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3sv6dtF...@individual.net...
If I substitute {X = the bullfrog, Y = rusty nail} The literal meaning would
still derive that {Only X exists}. It would not be a true statement, but, the
precise literal meaning of this statement would remain the same. Try to show
otherwise in the specific terms of this specific case.
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside (the bullfrog}. {The bullfrog} is the {rusty nail},
Weatherlawyer
John O'Flaherty wrote:
>
> What use is it to ascribe a precise meaning if you don't know if they were lying or not?
>
An all knowing "Y" would "know" that there would be certain kinds of
people around who might be liable to hold sway just when it could be
very unfortunate for them to do so.
You might try listening with you fat gob shut in such events as the
quote was alluding to.
On the other hand it does add a little flavour to the pot that the
prophet was tested by the self same people at the time the alledged
lying took place.
So don't let me stop you.
********
If I remember the story, he spent a deal of his time flashing the
community, so there was already a degree of disapprobation concerning
him. All of which was irrelevant as:
"I will give you the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret
places, that you may know that it is I, Yahweh, who call you by your
name, even the God of Israel."
..... apparently applied to persons as then unknown, who could not be
conjoured to play the part, not being born for several generations
hence.
Peter Olcott
"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131046075.3...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
(1) Exactly what is this statement saying?
(What is the precise semantic meaning that is being specified?)
(2) Does this statement correspond to the truth?
These are not the same single question, they are two separate and distinct questions.
Don Phillipson
news:aXsaf.2171$5N1.1906@dukeread08...
> That they may know from the rising of the sun,
> and from the west, that there is none beside
> X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
> (X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
The trouble with this sermon disguised as a thread
is that the OP starts with a translation of his source
text (not the original words) and feels free to make
substitutions not found in original translations
(here the references to set theory.)
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)
Alan Jones
What do you think "beside" meant in 17th century English?
Alan Jones
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3sv6dtF...@individual.net...
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> That they may know from the rising of the sun,
>>> and from the west, that there is none beside
>>> X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
>>> (X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
>>>
>>> From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
>>> Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
>>> change if all the words are left the same, except
>>> for a substitution of what these words apply to?
>>
>> We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT
mean
>> "nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
>> other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES
mean
>> "no other Lord". It will help if you read the context, even if
only
>> that one chapter. The doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is NOT
pantheism.
>>
>> --
>> Mike.
>>
>>
> Could you stick to the subject at hand please?
You mean by repeating the same incantation over and over again?
> If I substitute {X = the bullfrog, Y = rusty nail} The literal
> meaning would
> still derive that {Only X exists}. It would not be a true
statement,
> but, the
> precise literal meaning of this statement would remain the same.
Try
> to show
> otherwise in the specific terms of this specific case.
>
> That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
> that there is none beside (the bullfrog}. {The bullfrog} is the
> {rusty nail},
> and there is none else.
Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of "none".
Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the piece
of early modern English you quote.
Peter Olcott
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3sv8p3F...@individual.net...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:3sv6dtF...@individual.net...
>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> That they may know from the rising of the sun,
>>>> and from the west, that there is none beside
>>>> X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
>>>> (X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
>>>>
>>>> From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
>>>> Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
>>>> change if all the words are left the same, except
>>>> for a substitution of what these words apply to?
> Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of "none".
> Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the piece
> of early modern English you quote.
>
>
So are you proposing that "none" actually means {some} ?
I say that the above passage could only possible mean that
{only X exists} and does not at all depend of what noun
phrase is substituted for X. This would universally apply
to each and every possible noun phrase substituted for X.
Can you show that another meaning besides {Only X exists}
is literally specified by different noun phrase substitution for X?
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:3sv8p3F...@individual.net...
>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:3sv6dtF...@individual.net...
>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>> That they may know from the rising of the sun,
>>>>> and from the west, that there is none beside
>>>>> X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
>>>>> (X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
>>>>>
>>>>> From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
>>>>> Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
>>>>> change if all the words are left the same, except
>>>>> for a substitution of what these words apply to?
>
>> Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of
"none".
>> Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the
piece
>> of early modern English you quote.
>>
>>
> So are you proposing that "none" actually means {some} ?
You know perfectly well that I have offered a sensible explanation.
Your X and Y substitution looks very like intellectual dishonesty, as
it seems designed to produce the answer you want.
>
> I say that the above passage could only possible mean that
> {only X exists} and does not at all depend of what noun
> phrase is substituted for X. This would universally apply
> to each and every possible noun phrase substituted for X.
>
> Can you show that another meaning besides {Only X exists}
> is literally specified by different noun phrase substitution for X?
There really is no difficulty: you are trying to force a perverse
interpretation on a simple text. Isaiah 45:5 even explains it: "I
[am] the Lord, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside
me:". It goes on, through v6: "I girded thee, though thou hast not
known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the Lord, and [there is]
none else." The chapter continues, with the speaker listing things
that he has made: that is to say, things nobody else has made. It is
about God's sole divinity, not a call to pantheism.
It is essential to contextualise any passage of literature. What you
appear to be doing is taking your own interest in producing a form of
English which needs no context to establish meaning, and projecting
it back onto an author who had no such intention. One can't do that;
and even if one could, the word "none" in an early modern English
sentence of this type cannot have the meaning "nothing".
Peter Olcott
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svf0qF...@individual.net...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:3sv8p3F...@individual.net...
>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>> news:3sv6dtF...@individual.net...
>>>>> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>>>> That they may know from the rising of the sun,
>>>>>> and from the west, that there is none beside
>>>>>> X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
>>>>>> (X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From this it is clear what this passage is saying.
>>>>>> Nothing besides X exists. How could this meaning
>>>>>> change if all the words are left the same, except
>>>>>> for a substitution of what these words apply to?
>>
>>> Nonsense, I'm afraid. The subject at hand is the meaning of
> "none".
>>> Your substitution does not affect the meaning of "none" in the
> piece
>>> of early modern English you quote.
>>>
>>>
>> So are you proposing that "none" actually means {some} ?
>
> You know perfectly well that I have offered a sensible explanation.
> Your X and Y substitution looks very like intellectual dishonesty, as
> it seems designed to produce the answer you want.
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside {the bullfrog}.
{the bullfrog} is the {big green one}, and there is none else.
You still get {Only X exists}. In this case you get {Only {the bullfrog} exists}.
Although it might not be a true statement, this would still be the literal meaning
of the above sentence with the proposed substitutions.
>>
>> I say that the above passage could only possible mean that
>> {only X exists} and does not at all depend of what noun
>> phrase is substituted for X. This would universally apply
>> to each and every possible noun phrase substituted for X.
>>
>> Can you show that another meaning besides {Only X exists}
>> is literally specified by different noun phrase substitution for X?
>
> There really is no difficulty: you are trying to force a perverse
> interpretation on a simple text. Isaiah 45:5 even explains it: "I
You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
> [am] the Lord, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside
> me:". It goes on, through v6: "I girded thee, though thou hast not
> known me: That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the
> west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the Lord, and [there is]
> none else." The chapter continues, with the speaker listing things
> that he has made: that is to say, things nobody else has made. It is
> about God's sole divinity, not a call to pantheism.
>
> It is essential to contextualise any passage of literature. What you
> appear to be doing is taking your own interest in producing a form of
> English which needs no context to establish meaning, and projecting
> it back onto an author who had no such intention. One can't do that;
> and even if one could, the word "none" in an early modern English
> sentence of this type cannot have the meaning "nothing".
>
>
If you want to try to refute my reasoning you must stick to the subject
at hand. Take my substitutions above and try to show how the sentence
means that there is more than one bullfrog. I propose that this can not
possibly be done. You can not possibly show that the sentence allows
for there to be more than one bullfrog, because the exact and precise
meaning of the sentence is that {only the bullfrog exists}.
In order to get the precise literal meaning of any sentence one must explicitly
ignore whether or not it results in a true or false statement. If you don't do
this, then you are getting something other than exactly and precisely what the
sentence is specifying.
We all know that there is more than one bullfrog, and that there are things
that exist besides this one bullfrog, yet what we can not correctly say, is that
the above sentence agrees with this common sense perspective. It says that
{only the bullfrog exists} and can not possibly be taken to exactly and
precisely literally mean anything else.
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Alan Jones you are a guru. I now understand all.
God is the A-side. There is no beside.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
Mike Lyle
[...]
> You changed the subject again. I am talking about deriving the
> exact and precise meaning of a sentence, and you are talking
> about theology. I came to this group to get an exact and precise
> meaning of a sentence, not to talk about theology.
I can't do this any more.
the Omrud
For the record, it means the same to me in 21st Century English.
Beside other things.
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Peter Olcott
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svj3gF...@individual.net...
Laura F Spira
I am surprised that you, and others, have tried for quite so long.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Peter Olcott
"Laura F Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dke5cm$55t$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
You can't prove me wrong because I am right.
As soon as I change the basis where it becomes obvious
that I am right, you quit.
Peter Olcott
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svj3gF...@individual.net...
was not meant to be taken literally, if it is taken
literally then I am right, and you are wrong.
John Flynn
> You can't prove me wrong because I am right.
> As soon as I change the basis where it becomes obvious
> that I am right, you quit.
I quit when it became obvious that you were clueless about how
natural languages worked and you were stuck in some formal-language-
based fantasy land.
--
johnF
"Man, for example, may feel the need to become familiar with sheep."
-- _The Origins and Nature of Language_, Giorgio Fano (1962)
Laura F Spira
*I* haven't quit because I didn't start in the first place. I have
simply watched as the kinder souls around here, who thought you had come
to engage in informed debate, have devoted time and energy in futile
attempts to open your mind a little. Much of the misery in the world is
caused by people who know they are right.
Peter Olcott
"John Flynn" <joh...@lineone.net> wrote in message news:Xns9703ED1A...@213.123.26.234...
Any infallible communication is necessarily a formalism.
This of course would not apply to fallible communications.
Peter Olcott
"Laura F Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dke5vi$lnd$1...@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk...
That they may know from the rising of the sun,
and from the west, that there is none beside {the bullfrog}.
{the bullfrog} is the {big green one}, and there is none else.
Show me how this statement possibly allows for more than one
bullfrog, or anything else besides this one bullfrog. If you can do
this correctly then I am refuted. If this cannot be done correctly
that I am proven correct.
Peter Olcott
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3svf0qF...@individual.net...
The Mystical traditions of Christianity and Judaism both
agree with my meaning of the verse below. This is esoteric
rather than exoteric meaning.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.messianic/msg/1c80a64c643e746b
Evan Kirshenbaum
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
>> that there is none beside X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
>> (X = the Universal Set, Y = Set of All Things)
>>
>> From this it is clear what this passage is saying. Nothing besides
>> X exists. How could this meaning change if all the words are left
>> the same, except for a substitution of what these words apply to?
>
> We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT mean
> "nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
> other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES mean
> "no other Lord".
Not "no other Lord", "no other god". "Lord" is just the euphemism for
th guy's name. The "none" refers to the "Beside Me, there is no god"
in the previous verse.
> It will help if you read the context, even if only that one
> chapter. The doctrine of the Hebrew Bible is NOT pantheism.
Not even close. This may have been near the beginning of monotheism,
though.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Its like grasping the difference
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |between what one usually considers
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |a 'difficult' problem, and what
|*is* a difficult problem. The day
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |one understands *why* counting all
(650)857-7572 |the molecules in the Universe isn't
|difficult...there's the leap.
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/ | Tina Marie Holmboe
Charles Riggs
Exactly the sentiment I was about to express, but wanted to see
Laura's comment first. I killfiled the man early one; these days, I
skip most of the many responses to the fellow, too. This phenomenon
reminds me of when Spencer Hines used to post here, trolling, it
seemed to me, for responses. It surprised me that he got so many.
--
Charles Riggs
John O'Flaherty
They are two angles on the same question. You have an utterance, a
communication, from a source to a destination. To the degree that
meaning exists at all, it subsists in a correspondence between the
sayer and the hearer after the communication has occurred. Now what is
that correspondence? Some isomorphism between mental states? How close
can the mental states be, since each word is defined in a mind by its
connection to other words, and to all the history of each word's use by
the brain that that particular mind is running on?
For there to be perfectly unambiguous meanings, there obviously would
have to be communication between perfectly identical beings with
perfectly identical histories, in which case communication would be
impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
meaning.
--
john
Peter Olcott
"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131078078....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
identical histories just to be clearly understood?
It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
John O'Flaherty
That depends what you mean by 'clearly', and what you mean by
'understood'. They are abstract terms, and somewhat ambiguous.
> It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
> trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
That's an unprovable assertion unless you have direct access to the
mind of the writer at the instant of writing. In fact, your only access
is what was written, and, of course, the context and your familiarity
with the writer, and all the rest of it.
> We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
> Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
> not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
> thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
No. What $727.43 means changes moment to moment, in relation to all
other currencies and all other things that may be valued. If I was
expecting $800 it may mean I was underpaid. It may mean I got a bonus.
It may mean I've been fired, since I got the paycheck a week early.
That figure has a numerical precision near one part in 100,000, and
nothing about its implications, can be reckoned that precisely.
> > impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
> > Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
> > reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
> > statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
> > it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
> > from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
> > game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
> > think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
> > How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
> > separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
> > meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
> > very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
> > you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
> > you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
> > believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
> > up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
> > meaning.
You haven't answered this. The fact of ambiguity, and multiple
interpretation, is there and can't be denied. You have seen the
evidence. The only alternative is for you to claim that you have the
unique correct interpretation that you claim exists. It's either forget
the claim, or surrender to megalomania (the monomania is already
evident).
--
john
Laura F. Spira
>
>
> Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
> Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
> identical histories just to be clearly understood?
>
> It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
> trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
> We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
> Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
> not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
If you believe that, you really are deluded and I hope that you never
have occasion to rely on any sort of corporate financial report.
Anyone interested in learning more about this could read "The Tyranny of
Numbers: Why counting can't make us happy" by David Boyle
(HarperCollins, 2000) or, for a more academic approach, Ted Porter's
"Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public
Life" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995)
The same
> thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
>
Mike Lyle
> "Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> writes:
[...]
>> We have told you what "none" means in Isaiah 45:6. It does NOT
mean
>> "nothing". It does NOT mean "no other thing". It does NOT mean "no
>> other living thing". It does NOT mean "no other person". It DOES
mean
>> "no other Lord".
>
> Not "no other Lord", "no other god". "Lord" is just the euphemism
for
> th guy's name. The "none" refers to the "Beside Me, there is no
god"
> in the previous verse.
In the isolated second sentence, "I am the Lord and there is none
else", it's "Lord", but of course you're right in terms of the whole
passage. Our enquirer, though, with his taste for one-to-one
correspondences, may believe that "Lord" and "God" here refer to two
distinct persons; in which case I might find the sentences difficult
to interpret.
--
Mike.
Peter Olcott
"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131082087.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
All that is needed is to make unique one-to-one mathematical mappings
between the symbols that encode the meanings, and the meanings themselves.
>
>> We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
>> Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
>> not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers. The same
>> thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
>
> No. What $727.43 means changes moment to moment, in relation to all
> other currencies and all other things that may be valued. If I was
> expecting $800 it may mean I was underpaid. It may mean I got a bonus.
Those are not precisely literal meanings. Those meanings are derived from the
primary literal meaning, as secondary meanings. What I am saying is that with
numbers, (unlike many English sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43
as any other amount than $723.47.
> It may mean I've been fired, since I got the paycheck a week early.
> That figure has a numerical precision near one part in 100,000, and
> nothing about its implications, can be reckoned that precisely.
>
>> > impossible, since there would be no differences to communicate.
>> > Now, how can there be a correspondence between the mind of a person
>> > reading the statement you began with, and the mind of the source of the
>> > statement, if you don't know who originated the statement? Did god say
>> > it? Did someone say god said it? Is it a statement that has been passed
>> > from one mind to the next, through multiple languages, as if in a party
>> > game? Was the original motivation of the utterance to make the hearer
>> > think they had no other option than to support a particular priest?
>> > How can you even think that such an abstract statement has meaning
>> > separable from context? If you really believed that it had such a
>> > meaning, you wouldn't have to ask about it. You would know the meaning
>> > very precisely. Now, you have seen that others read it differently than
>> > you do. That shows that the statement is ambiguous, unless you think
>> > you are uniquely qualified to interpret it. But, again, if you really
>> > believe that, then your only possible purpose in bringing the question
>> > up here must be that you wish to instruct us on that true, unambiguous
>> > meaning.
>
> You haven't answered this. The fact of ambiguity, and multiple
> interpretation, is there and can't be denied. You have seen the
Just set it up such that there is a one-to-one mathematical mapping
between the encoding of meaning with words and the meaning that
is encoded. This can only be done if meaning is derived with 100%
perfect literal precision.
Peter Olcott
"Laura F. Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dkf6da$5hp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
>> Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
>> identical histories just to be clearly understood?
>>
>> It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
>> trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
>> We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
>> Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means. There is
>> not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
Unlike with English words no one is free to interpret $723.47 as
any other amount. There is a perfect one-to-one mathematical
mapping between the symbols {$723.47} and the primary semantic
meaning that is specified.
John O'Flaherty
OK, it's your project. You do it, and then report on the result. I'm
sure everyone will be interested.
Peter Olcott
"John O'Flaherty" <quia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1131114402.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
natural language.
Peter Duncanson
<la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>>
>> Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
>> Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
>> identical histories just to be clearly understood?
>>
>> It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
>> trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
>> We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
>> Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means.
OK. Let's accept that for the sake of argument (even though the
interpretation of "$727.43" is dependent on context -- US, Canadian,
Australian, etc, dollars.).
Such precision is not achievable in respect of most aspects of the
universe including us who are part of the universe.
Precision may be unachievable because the phenomena we wish to describe
are inherently imprecise, or, as with the mathematical constant Pi for
example, are not in the least uncertain or fuzzy but cannot be precisely
expressed in our integer-based numerical system.
> There is
>> not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
>
>If you believe that, you really are deluded and I hope that you never
>have occasion to rely on any sort of corporate financial report.
>
>Anyone interested in learning more about this could read "The Tyranny of
>Numbers: Why counting can't make us happy" by David Boyle
>(HarperCollins, 2000) or, for a more academic approach, Ted Porter's
>"Trust in Numbers: the Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public
>Life" (Princeton Univ. Press, 1995)
>
>The same
>> thing can be done with words, its just more difficult.
>>
--
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to be
searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in loose and
imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those things
that he believes should be taken literally.
His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to many
others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he believes that
if a version of English can be created in which words have unambiguous
meanings then God will be able to communicate with us with no fear of
misunderstanding. Of course if this language does not have a word for
what God wants to say he'll have to revert to metaphor leading to
misunderstandings and disagreements all round -- back to square zero.
Peter Olcott
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:t6omm1l7nmske2pao...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 08:33:50 +0000, "Laura F. Spira"
> <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Peter Olcott wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you really think that it is this difficult to communicate unambiguously?
>>> Do you really think that you have to have two identical beings with
>>> identical histories just to be clearly understood?
>>>
>>> It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
>>> trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
>>> We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
>>> Everyone knows exactly and precisely what this means.
>
> OK. Let's accept that for the sake of argument (even though the
> interpretation of "$727.43" is dependent on context -- US, Canadian,
> Australian, etc, dollars.).
>
> Such precision is not achievable in respect of most aspects of the
> universe including us who are part of the universe.
>
> Precision may be unachievable because the phenomena we wish to describe
> are inherently imprecise, or, as with the mathematical constant Pi for
> example, are not in the least uncertain or fuzzy but cannot be precisely
> expressed in our integer-based numerical system.
{the ratio of the diameter to the circumference of a circle}
This is known as algorithmic compression.
Also as long as we represent a vague specification with exactly the same
degree of vagueness that the writer intends when we derive this same
degree of vagueness in our understanding of this encoded meaning, we
are still being 100% literally precise. I usually ask people to provide a
range estimate of what they mean by phrases such as "a long time".
When they say that the can't possibly be more specific, I say is it
more than a billionth of a second and less than a million years? Can
you improve upon this range estimate? Then they usually narrow it
down to a reasonable degree of specificity.
Peter Olcott
"Peter Duncanson" <ma...@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:00umm1pq4sh83i7k1...@4ax.com...
The problem with figurative meanings is that with enough subjective leeway
anything can mean anything. There is only one possible way to completely
eliminate all error in the communication process, and that is to reduce the
subjective leeway to zero, and derive a perfect one-to-one mathematical
mapping between the words and the meaning.
Mike Lyle
[...]
> It is my impression that Peter Olcott is not trolling. He seems to
be
> searching for an exactness and precision in the Universe which he
> believes exists but is ignored by humans who express things in
loose
> and imprecise language, and who fail to interpret literally those
> things that he believes should be taken literally.
>
> His concern with the literal meanings of religious texts (which to
> many others appear to be figurative) makes me wonder whether he
> believes that if a version of English can be created in which words
> have unambiguous meanings then God will be able to communicate with
> us with no fear of misunderstanding. Of course if this language
does
> not have a word for what God wants to say he'll have to revert to
> metaphor leading to misunderstandings and disagreements all
round --
> back to square zero.
Earlier on in the proceedings, it crossed my mind to wonder if he
was, in fact, looking for evidence to use _against_ Biblical
literalism. The Bible, that thought went, is quite obviously not a
pantheist text, so if one of its sentences could be shown
unequivocally to be pantheist in meaning it would be shown to be
self-contradictory. Then, again, it had seemed at the outset that he
was hoping to reconcile the Bible with some Hindu beliefs. Soon, of
course, he wandered into the "ISO lexicon" quagmire. By then, I too
had lost any clear sense of what his purpose in visiting us was; but
at least I knew I'd lost that clear sense, so my sanity, such as it
is, remains undamaged.
--
Mike.
nancy13g
Peter Duncanson wrote:
[...] back to square zero.
Would this be the appropriate place to put one of those "Oy!" things?
Peter Olcott
"Mike Lyle" <mike_l...@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3t1cuoF...@individual.net...
Peter Olcott
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that
they also may be one in us...
"one" is literally the first element of the set of counting numbers.
Every other meaning of "one" is figurative, rather than literal.
Peter Olcott
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together
in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and are on the earth;
even in him
Maria Conlon
Yes, unless any unnumbered beginning square is "zero" by default. (Who
sets the default, anyway, in things like that?)
--
Maria Conlon
Paul Wolff
writes
>What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English sentences)
>one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount than $723.47.
Good point, sir.
--
Paul
In bocca al Lupo!
Maria Conlon
> Peter Olcott writes
>> What I am saying is that with numbers, (unlike many English
>> sentences) one is not free to interpret $727.43 as any other amount
>> than $723.47.
>
> Good point, sir.
Except for the transposition, perhaps? (I may be missing something.)
--
Maria Conlon
Paul Wolff
<mari...@sbcglobal.net> writes
leave the word intelligible, while writing "meaning #743" when "347" was
intended leaves the reader hopelessly adrift.
Peter Olcott
"Paul Wolff" <boun...@two.wolff.co.uk> wrote in message news:VwGCAtAckRbDFw$d...@fpwolff.demon.co.uk...
It was a typo, well duh.
Donna Richoux
We are getting so close to the old comedy-convention-numbered-jokes
jokes.
--
It's the way he says it -- Donna Richoux
Paul Wolff
writes
>
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> This is the inevitable consequence of getting machines to fully comprehend
> natural language.
[I snipped everything preceding this one sentence, but I'd like to
note that I have no idea what the referent of "This" was supposed to
be. Not that it matters.]
You're going to get a machine to "fully comprehend natural language"?
This is your project? This is what you are trying to persuade us is
"just" another task involving analysis, programming, and data input?
(And you're the one who keeps saying it's "just" this or "just"
that.) This is what you're going to patent?
You, sir, are either the most naive person in the world or insane.
Your choice.
--
Bob Lieblich
I know my choice
Robert Lieblich
Anyone who has had experience with COLAs (cost of living adjustments)
is well aware that dollar figures are not immutable. The $727.43 of
1995 and the $727.43 of 2005 are not the same thing at all. That's
why you are constantly seeing figures in "constant dollars" as of some
given base year. Thus, for example, the $727.43 of 2005 may be
$610.53 (made up number) in 1995 dollars. Comparing one year against
another without adjusting the numbers leads to unsatisfactory
conclusions about economic activity and the worth of any given
monetary amount. I now earn in one year about eight times as many
dollars as my father earned in his best year ever. That doesn't mean
my earnings are worth eight times what he earned.
As long as you don't care about context or such minor inconveniences
as reality, it's easy enough to say that a given dollar figure equals
itself. But it's often misleading to the point of being a lie.
How do you enter that in your little lexicon? And how many
superscripts will you need?
--
Bob Lieblich
Who can't seem to stop
Peter Olcott
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436D809A...@verizon.net...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> This is the inevitable consequence of getting machines to fully comprehend
>> natural language.
>
> [I snipped everything preceding this one sentence, but I'd like to
> note that I have no idea what the referent of "This" was supposed to
> be. Not that it matters.]
>
> You're going to get a machine to "fully comprehend natural language"?
> This is your project? This is what you are trying to persuade us is
> "just" another task involving analysis, programming, and data input?
> (And you're the one who keeps saying it's "just" this or "just"
> that.) This is what you're going to patent?
I have been working on it for fifteen years off and on. It is inevitable
that someone will be doing this fairly soon. The only thing that I
have been spending my time on is the basic structure of the knowledge
representation system. Once this one aspect is fully developed most
of the rest could be automated. There was another project that has
already encoded the set of common sense meanings. This project
lasted over a decade, and has been completed for at least five years.
William
> I have been working on it for fifteen years off and on. It is inevitable
> that someone will be doing this fairly soon. The only thing that I
> have been spending my time on is the basic structure of the knowledge
> representation system. Once this one aspect is fully developed most
> of the rest could be automated.
On your showing here, it looks as though it will be a while yet before
this project "completes". The quotes are there because I believe that
such a project could never truly be completed (since language is always
being redefined).
> There was another project that has
> already encoded the set of common sense meanings. This project
> lasted over a decade, and has been completed for at least five years.
Then, by definition, it has failed (see above).
--
WH
Peter Olcott
"William" <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131253388.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> I have been working on it for fifteen years off and on. It is inevitable
>> that someone will be doing this fairly soon. The only thing that I
>> have been spending my time on is the basic structure of the knowledge
>> representation system. Once this one aspect is fully developed most
>> of the rest could be automated.
>
> On your showing here, it looks as though it will be a while yet before
> this project "completes". The quotes are there because I believe that
> such a project could never truly be completed (since language is always
> being redefined).
I also have fully accounted for this. As soon as anyone fully understands
exactly how knowledge will be represented, the project will be completed.
I already have determined some of the basic requirements of this, and
how these requirements will be fulfilled.
William
> It is possible to communicate without losing or gaining the slightest
> trace of meaning over the original meaning specified by the writer.
> We do it with numbers all the time. Your paycheck is $727.43.
> not the slightest trace of miscommunication with numbers.
Not so. Consider:
1. Many countries use the $ sign for their local currency. Without some
context, we cannot know which currency is implied.
2. Many countries use the comma to indicate the decimal place, and a
period/full-stop to indicate thousands. Whilst it is true that the
quoted figure only has two digits after the decimal-point, this could
be due to a typo. Context would clarify for us.
3. The figure may be current or historical. Context would tell us
which.
So, it could be that the figure means "Seven hundred and twenty seven
thousand, four hundred and thirty Hong Kong dollars in 1895" or it
could be that it means "Seven hundred and twenty seven US dollars and
forty three cents in 2005", or could it mean a wide range of other
things. Without context, we can only guess.
In short, as with words, so with numbers. We must have context in order
to extract meaning.
--
WH
Maria Conlon
<sigh> I fear that no one -- not even you, Bob -- has really understood
my question yet, rhetorical though it may have been.
1. Olcott wrote that you aren't free to interpret $727.43 as any other
amount than $723.47. Notice that the two amounts are *not the same*.
2. I assume Olcott merely transposed a couple of numbers there. Besides,
if you *are* free interpret $727.43 as $723.47, there's no reason to
limit the interpretation to other amounts, too. Why not $743.27, for
instance?
3. Am I losing my mind, or am I the only one to notice that the numbers
are different?
--
Maria Conlon
Laura F. Spira
Paul did and I did. But even if he had transposed the numbers correctly
Mr.Olcott is deluded if he believes that there can be no ambiguity about
them.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email)
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> 1. Olcott wrote that you aren't free to interpret $727.43 as any other
> amount than $723.47. Notice that the two amounts are *not the same*.
> 2. I assume Olcott merely transposed a couple of numbers there. Besides,
> if you *are* free interpret $727.43 as $723.47, there's no reason to
> limit the interpretation to other amounts, too. Why not $743.27, for
> instance?
> 3. Am I losing my mind, or am I the only one to notice that the numbers
> are different?
I noticed, Maria, although not until I had read your comment. I
particularly enjoyed the way Peter Olcott blew you off with "well,
it's just a typo." Can you imagine what a few typos would do to his
well-ordered (if impossible) scheme?[1] I simply took him at his
word, disregarded his typo, and pointed out that even if he'd not
mistranscribed the numbers he was still arguing for a level of
literality that real life doesn't allow.
[1] I can imagine plenty of errors when writers have to assign
superscript numbers to words as they write.
--
Bob Lieblich
Of whom Skitt's law requires a corresponding tyop
Peter Olcott
"William" <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131254167....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
to the one intended meaning, yet this set of meanings can be derived
without any specified context.
The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
Peter Olcott
"Laura F. Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dkkal7$pl1$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
$723.47 specifies a singular precise semantic meaning because it comes
with a default set of assumptions that if not explicitly over-ridden is taken
to be logically entailed. This would be Dollars of the United States of America,
in the current timeframe, with notation conventions of the USA. I should have
just said the number 723.47.
William
meaning because it comes
> with a default set of assumptions that if not explicitly over-ridden is taken
> to be logically entailed. This would be Dollars of the United States of America,
> in the current timeframe, with notation conventions of the USA.
Not here, it doesn't. It comes with my set of assumptions, not yours;
unless you state what your assumptions were, and that would be the
context I was seeking.
> I should have
> just said the number 723.47.
That would change the problem but not resolve it. Re-read what I wrote,
and you will see why.
If you are to teach us all how to use words, you must become more
skilled in your own usage.
--
WH
Robert Lieblich
But *you* specified that "precise meaning," and inevitably, though you
refuse to admit it, the process by which you did so was subjective.
You brought to it your preconceptions not only about the meanings of
the individual words but about what inferences should be drawn from
them. Evan Kirshenbaum has established to my satisfaction, if not
yours, that a person living at the time the passage was written,
confronted with that passage in its original language, would have
brought different preconceptions to the process of interpretation and
would not have understood it as you claim to have.
I could, and probably will, go on at further length about this, but
you've seen and read it all before, and not just from me, and haven't
understood it at all. That's your problem. Mine is getting out of
this thread.
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Peter Olcott
"William" <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131291980.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
os Pi as 3,1415926 (using a comma instead of a decimal point) ???
The Grammer Genious
I remember reading a good example for the task we are setting the machine up
to do. The machine must be able to comprehend this exchange. (Not just
translate it -- comprehend it.)
Woman: "I'm leaving you."
Man: "Who is he?"
William
> The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
> leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
> of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
> of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
> was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
Pardon me for using my assumptions instead of yours. But how shall I
know your assumptions, if you won't state them.?
Of course, you and I both know that the real problem is that you are
unable to recognise the existence of your own assumptions. Thus you
believe that your "meaning" is unadorned with such things, and is thus
"pure". It isn't, you are just using your set of preconceptions rather
than mine. But you can't recognise your own preconceptions and thus you
are deluded into believing that they neither exist nor influence your
statements.
--
WH
Peter Olcott
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436E2B01...@verizon.net...
That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west,
that there is none beside X. X is the Y, and there is none else.
That the above statement is saying that {Only X exists} is entailed
by the meaning of the words, regardless of the value substituted for X.
{there is none else} is neither ambiguous nor equivocal.
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ]
> So by this are you proposing that some countries would encode the value
> os Pi as 3,1415926 (using a comma instead of a decimal point) ???
I would infer as much. See
<http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecimalPoint.html>.
Needless to say, millions of people in the countries that follow that
practice are speakers of English with varying degrees of facility.
--
Bob Lieblich
Glad to be dealing with facts for once
Peter Olcott
"The Grammer Genious" <washcou...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:w4qbf.695$w_6.603@trndny09...
Once the KR is right, everything else falls right into place.
William
> So by this are you proposing that some countries would encode the value
> os Pi as 3,1415926 (using a comma instead of a decimal point) ???
Exactly so. See:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecimalPoint.html
But, of course, you already know this from your research into your
"15-year project".
--
WH
Robert Lieblich
[ ... ];
> $723.47 specifies a singular precise semantic meaning because it comes
> with a default set of assumptions that if not explicitly over-ridden is taken
> to be logically entailed. This would be Dollars of the United States of America,
> in the current timeframe, with notation conventions of the USA. I should have
> just said the number 723.47.
Is that decimal, octal, duodecimal ... ?
And what makes you think that your default assumption is everyone's
default assumption?
--
Bob Lieblich
Driving himself crazy
Peter Olcott
"William" <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131294402.4...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Olcott wrote:
>> The problem with your way of looking at it allows to much subjective
>> leeway. If people would have used my process for getting the understanding
>> of the verse that I quoted, their response would not have been from the set
>> of possible meanings. They explicitly over-rode the precise meaning that
>> was specified so that it would correspond to their preconceived notions.
>
> Pardon me for using my assumptions instead of yours. But how shall I
> know your assumptions, if you won't state them.?
implying too much subjective leeway in the definition of literal itself.
How about this one. The precisely literal meaning can be imprecisely
defined as an element from the set of all possible methods of semantic
derivation, such that only a single meaning is thus derived. This is a
backwards definition that starts with the intended goal. There are
several sources of the derivation of more than one meaning for a
sentence, I think that this set is comprehensive, correct me if I am wrong.
There are only three categories of ways that a sentence can be taken
to mean more than one thing:
(1) Word sense meanings (Can't tell which one is intended)
(2) Structural ambiguity, can't tell which words apply to which other words.
Things such as tying a pronoun back to its noun.
(3) Vagueness, using words that inherently possess imprecise meanings.
If we eliminate the first two, then we derive a singular mathematical mapping
from the words to the intended meaning. I always have people translate
vague terms such as "quite a while" into range estimates.
Peter Olcott
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436E2EE2...@verizon.net...
standard, thus making all others incorrect. The others could co-exist,
but, not in formal communications such as contracts.
Peter Olcott
"William" <wil...@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1131294624.2...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
What is the structure of knowledge?
Arbitrary conventions play no part in the
structure of knowledge.
Robert Lieblich
>
> "Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436E2EE2...@verizon.net...
> > Peter Olcott wrote [quoting WH]:
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >> So by this are you proposing that some countries would encode the value
> >> os Pi as 3,1415926 (using a comma instead of a decimal point) ???
> >
> > I would infer as much. See
> > <http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DecimalPoint.html>.
> >
> > Needless to say, millions of people in the countries that follow that
> > practice are speakers of English with varying degrees of facility.
> Well in that case simply choose one of these arbitrary systems as the
> standard, thus making all others incorrect. The others could co-exist,
> but, not in formal communications such as contracts.
Old Steve Martin routine:
"You can make a million dollars and not pay taxes. Here's how --
First you make a million dollars. Then ..."
I did particularly enjoy that "simply."
--
Bob Lieblich
Time to go torture some cats
Peter Olcott
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436E2FA5...@verizon.net...
I just defined it as the standard. ISO can later over-ride me and come
up with another set of defaults. In order for meaning to be precise, yet
not too cumbersome to specify, there would have to be default meanings.
These would come from the first sense meaning of the ISO standard
dictionary, unless explicitly superceded by an ISO standard sense meaning
subscript. The ISO standard would also require a standard set of notational
conventions. These could be county specific, yet tie back to the exact
same semantic meaning. It would be even better if we simply dropped
all but one of these arbitrary conventions.
Peter Olcott
"Robert Lieblich" <robert....@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436E343B...@verizon.net...
Its a cost benefit analysis. If all the ideas proposed here would be
implemented, the long run benefits would greatly exceed the long
run costs.
the Omrud
Is that the UK or US meaning of "county"? Or some Australian or
South African meaning which I'm not familiar with? What is the level
of granularity? People in the UK born only a few miles apart
disagree on the meanings of words - are you going to have separate
conventions for towns, boroughs, villages, streets? Families?
Yes, I know you meant "country", but it's not a good start, is it?
--
David
=====
replace usenet with the
Peter Olcott
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd84ccb9...@news.ntlworld.com...
The ISO standard sense meaning of country(1).
Laura F. Spira
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
the Omrud
>
> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd84ccb9...@news.ntlworld.com...
> > Peter Olcott <olc...@att.net> spake thusly:
> >
> >> I just defined it as the standard. ISO can later over-ride me and come
> >> up with another set of defaults. In order for meaning to be precise, yet
> >> not too cumbersome to specify, there would have to be default meanings.
> >> These would come from the first sense meaning of the ISO standard
> >> dictionary, unless explicitly superceded by an ISO standard sense meaning
> >> subscript. The ISO standard would also require a standard set of notational
> >> conventions. These could be county specific, yet tie back to the exact
> >> same semantic meaning. It would be even better if we simply dropped
> >> all but one of these arbitrary conventions.
> >
> > Is that the UK or US meaning of "county"? Or some Australian or
> > South African meaning which I'm not familiar with? What is the level
> > of granularity? People in the UK born only a few miles apart
> > disagree on the meanings of words - are you going to have separate
> > conventions for towns, boroughs, villages, streets? Families?
> >
> > Yes, I know you meant "country", but it's not a good start, is it?
>
> The ISO standard sense meaning of country(1).
OK (whatever that is agreed as - it's not really relevant), but do
you seriously think it's granular enough? The country of the United
Kingdom is very disunited when it comes to the English language.
Norfolk, Belfast, Shetland and Liverpool are in the same ISO country
but they're hardly similar in the way they use English.
Peter Olcott
"Laura F. Spira" <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dklgpv$mq2$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
I elaborate now slightly. Not so much precise meaning as singular meaning.
The vague terms are left as vague terms. Merely the process by which a
mathematical mapping can be established from the words to the semantic
meaning of the words such that this mapping is one-to-one in its correspondence.
the Omrud
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>
> > I could, and probably will, go on at further length about this, but
> > you've seen and read it all before, and not just from me, and haven't
> > understood it at all. That's your problem. Mine is getting out of
> > this thread.
> >
> > --
> >Bob Lieblich
> >Which way to the egress?
>
> Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
> one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
Non, je ne egret rien.
the Omrud
> Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
> one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
I'm starting to think that "Peter Olcott" is a Martian who's keeping
us busy so that we don't notice the invasion until it's too late.
Peter Olcott
"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd8593c2...@news.ntlworld.com...
All the other things can be taken care of through the
ISO standard sense meaning subscripts.
Maria Conlon
> Maria Conlon wrote, in part:
>>
>> <sigh> I fear that no one -- not even you, Bob -- has really
>> understood my question yet, rhetorical though it may have been.
>
> Paul did and I did.
Oops. I didn't read all the posts in the thread yet...
> ........But even if he had transposed the numbers
> correctly Mr.Olcott is deluded if he believes that there can be no
> ambiguity about them.
... and I may not attempt to, now that I've read more.
(This thread reminds me a little of the Canadian gentlemen, Jacobi, who
wanted a Universal Language. Remember him? He was nice, IIRC.
--
Maria Conlon
Paul Wolff
<mari...@sbcglobal.net> writes
>Laura F. Spira wrote:
>> Maria Conlon wrote, in part:
>>>
>>> <sigh> I fear that no one -- not even you, Bob -- has really
>>> understood my question yet, rhetorical though it may have been.
>[...]
>>
>> Paul did and I did.
>
>Oops. I didn't read all the posts in the thread yet...
>
>> ........But even if he had transposed the numbers
>> correctly Mr.Olcott is deluded if he believes that there can be no
>> ambiguity about them.
>
>... and I may not attempt to, now that I've read more.
It's only(1) fit(2) for(3) dipping(5) and digging(7).
>
>(This thread reminds me a little of the Canadian gentlemen, Jacobi, who
>wanted a Universal Language. Remember him? He was nice, IIRC.
>
I work on the basis that most people have a "nice" layer, and when one
has found it, one shouldn't upset the applecart by seeking to penetrate
further (farther?).
--
Love from Paul
Harvey Van Sickle
-snip-
> I work on the basis that most people have a "nice" layer, and
> when one has found it, one shouldn't upset the applecart by
> seeking to penetrate further (farther?).
I'd use "further"; "farther" implies physical rather than
metaphorical distance to me.
--
Cheers, Harvey
Canadian (30 years) and British (23 years)
For e-mail, change harvey.news to harvey.van
Robert Lieblich
>
> Laura F. Spira <la...@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> spake thusly:
>
> > Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
> > one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
>
> I'm starting to think that "Peter Olcott" is a Martian who's keeping
> us busy so that we don't notice the invasion until it's too late.
What sort of Martian do you think participates in flonk.flonk.flonk?
--
Bob Lieblich
More venereal than martian
the Omrud
You think he's a blood-sucking Martian? Could be.
John Dean
> Robert Lieblich wrote:
>> --
>> Bob Lieblich
>> Which way to the egress?
>
> Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
> one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
Egrets? I've had a few ...
I admire the stamina and optimism of those who have contributed at least
three posts to this thread.
--
John Dean
Oxford
the Omrud
> Laura F. Spira wrote:
> > Robert Lieblich wrote:
> >> --
> >> Bob Lieblich
> >> Which way to the egress?
> >
> > Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is useful if
> > one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick wall.
>
> Egrets? I've had a few ...
Presumably a sufficiently large number to make them worth reporting?
Laura F. Spira
Does that include the OP?
Laura F. Spira
A man's gotta do.. so he did.
Robert Lieblich
The OP is a bot. There's no other explanation. The guy who scares me
is the creator of the bot.
--
Bot Lieblich
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>
>"the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd8593c2...@news.ntlworld.com...
>> Peter Olcott <olc...@att.net> spake thusly:
>>
>>>
>>> "the Omrud" <usenet...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:MPG.1dd84ccb9...@news.ntlworld.com...
>>> > Peter Olcott <olc...@att.net> spake thusly:
>>> >
>>> >> I just defined it as the standard. ISO can later over-ride me and come
>>> >> up with another set of defaults. In order for meaning to be precise, yet
>>> >> not too cumbersome to specify, there would have to be default meanings.
>>> >> These would come from the first sense meaning of the ISO standard
>>> >> dictionary, unless explicitly superceded by an ISO standard sense meaning
>>> >> subscript. The ISO standard would also require a standard set of notational
>>> >> conventions. These could be county specific, yet tie back to the exact
>>> >> same semantic meaning. It would be even better if we simply dropped
>>> >> all but one of these arbitrary conventions.
>>> >
>>> > Is that the UK or US meaning of "county"? Or some Australian or
>>> > South African meaning which I'm not familiar with? What is the level
>>> > of granularity? People in the UK born only a few miles apart
>>> > disagree on the meanings of words - are you going to have separate
>>> > conventions for towns, boroughs, villages, streets? Families?
>>> >
>>> > Yes, I know you meant "country", but it's not a good start, is it?
>>>
>>> The ISO standard sense meaning of country(1).
>>
>> OK (whatever that is agreed as - it's not really relevant), but do
>> you seriously think it's granular enough? The country of the United
>> Kingdom is very disunited when it comes to the English language.
>> Norfolk, Belfast, Shetland and Liverpool are in the same ISO country
Also usages vary within those four places.
>> but they're hardly similar in the way they use English.
>>
>> --
>> David
>> =====
>> replace usenet with the
>I would prefer that there be only a single dictionary.
>All the other things can be taken care of through the
>ISO standard sense meaning subscripts.
>
The more I read your messages the less clear I am about who will use
your proposed highly regimented and formalised dialect of English.
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u)
John Dean
Of course. I notice no angels have trodden the space he occupies ...
--
John "Deconstruct *that* mon ami" Dean
Oxford