Exactly what is this most literally saying?

Vocaboly.com
Vocabulary builder software for SAT, TOEFL, GRE, GMAT and more

FAQ

Memberlist

Profile

Exactly what is this most literally saying?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Next

Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.english.usage

Author

Message

Peter Olcott
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:43682249.E8EDFF1A@verizon.net...

Quote:

Peter Olcott wrote:

[ ... ]

It started with my bewilderment over why no one here could
correctly derive a 100% completely literal semantic meaning
of Isaiah 45:6 KJV.

We sure told you enough times.

However this mathematical specification
of human language has been on ongoing project of mine for
fifteen years.

And that's how far you've gotten? I suggest you speed up. Stop
wasting all that time on Usenet posts.

I eventually hope to transform it into a patentable invention.

Please come back when you get that patent and let us know so I can
start buying my ice in Hell.

Next week we'll talk about the placement of "eventually."

--
Bob Lieblich
Just a bit doubtful

I have another patent pending invention that is nearly
through the process. I have been waiting more than three years so far.

Robert Lieblich
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

Peter Olcott wrote:

[ ... ]

Quote:

It started with my bewilderment over why no one here could
correctly derive a 100% completely literal semantic meaning
of Isaiah 45:6 KJV.

We sure told you enough times.

Quote:

However this mathematical specification
of human language has been on ongoing project of mine for
fifteen years.

And that's how far you've gotten? I suggest you speed up. Stop
wasting all that time on Usenet posts.

Quote:

I eventually hope to transform it into a patentable invention.

Please come back when you get that patent and let us know so I can
start buying my ice in Hell.

Next week we'll talk about the placement of "eventually."

--
Bob Lieblich
Just a bit doubtful

Robert Lieblich
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: "Only a couple of million dollars" [was: Re: Exactly wha

Bob Cunningham wrote:

Quote:

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:36:22 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:

[...]

There's only a couple of million
dollars at stake in this contract, but other, larger ones loom.

"Only a couple of million"?

One submarine costs about three billion dollars these days, one
aircraft carrier more than twice that. The ships in the case I
described are relatively inexpensive -- perhaps $400 million each
(total price).

Quote:

I'm reminded of Senator Everett
Dirksen's quip, "You spend a billion dollars here and a
billion dollars there, and before you know it you're talking
about real money". Or words to that effect.

Current equivalent: "Take care of the billions and the trillions will
take care of themselves." Another line I find myself using: "Back
when a hundred million dollars was worth arguing about."

I work for the Navy, with a specialty in litigating against
shipbuilders. We deal in large amounts of money. Cynicism
notwithstanding, we Navy people do try to get the most bang for the
buck. But a million-dollar litigation is indeed picayune. The one I
described is, indeed, a stalking horse for larger ones. And it is a
bit weird to hang up the phone after arguing about a few million bucks
with some shipbuilder's lawyer and head for the cafeteria, where I try
to negotiate some extra lettuce on my sandwich without an extra charge
for it.

The numbers do get so big sometimes that it's hard to keep a grip on
reality. The ladies at the cafeteria take care of that.

--
Bob Lieblich
Who wishes he was paid in percentages

Bob Cunningham
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: "Only a couple of million dollars" [was: Re: Exactly what is

On Tue, 01 Nov 2005 18:36:22 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:

[...]

Quote:

There's only a couple of million
dollars at stake in this contract, but other, larger ones loom.

"Only a couple of million"? I'm reminded of Senator Everett
Dirksen's quip, "You spend a billion dollars here and a
billion dollars there, and before you know it you're talking
about real money". Or words to that effect.

Then there was Daddy Warbucks in "Annie", saying "The next
thing I knew I'd made a million dollars, and that was a lot
of money in those days". Or words to that effect.

I recall an unassuming man in our RV club who had been the
longtime owner of some rental properties in Burbank that he
eventually sold. He innocently told me one day about a man
he knew who "was a millionaire before everybody was".

Peter Olcott
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message news:hdavvo3w.fsf@hpl.hp.com...

Quote:

John Flynn <johnpf@lineone.net> writes:

Basically, what you're suggesting is an artificial language, just
like the legions of other conlangs that have been invented in order
to, their inventors claim, aid in logical structure and
communication. The fact that you think yours is English is just an
accident since English is the language you are familiar with and,
hey!, it's less work if you don't have to waste time attending to
all those fiddly bits like syntax and morphology. I understand now.

Those who were around at the time will recall that such lack of
ambiguity has been claimed here in the past for another language (and
will understand why mentioning the language might risk an unwelcome
visitor). In that case it turned out that the claim was based on
exactly such an artificial variant (confused by the claimant with the
(normally ambiguous) living language) created and used by scholars
millenia ago.

And we couldn't keep track of this living language on the web so that everyone
will be on the same page? Why do we really need fifty different dictionaries of
the same Language?

Quote:

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Peter Olcott
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3sqfdqFpk30kU1@individual.net...

Quote:

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
[...]
Anyway: good luck with your project, but I think you're fighting
against the ambiguous product of an species which is addicted to
ambiguity. It's like trying to capture and bottle thought waves.

If I remember correctly what Peter said before I more or less
abandoned the thread in disgust, his project is not so much ISO
machine-readable English, as actually to get the entire human race to
believe in his misinterpretation of a single sentence of the Bible.
This would, I understand, lead to permanent world peace. The lion
shall presumably eat straw like the ass; the lame man, I wouldn't be
at all surprised, will leap as an hart; and it looks pretty much as
though the tongue of the dumb shall sing, too.

--
Mike.

It started with my bewilderment over why no one here could

correctly derive a 100% completely literal semantic meaning
of Isaiah 45:6 KJV. However this mathematical specification
of human language has been on ongoing project of mine for
fifteen years. I eventually hope to transform it into a patentable
invention.

Peter Olcott
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:4367FBF6.4DAB5584@verizon.net...

Quote:

Harvey Van Sickle wrote:

On 01 Nov 2005, Peter Olcott wrote

[ ... ]

These proposed standards are primarily intended for lawyers
and scientists where it getting precise meaning specified
makes the most difference.

Ah, now I get it -- This is all a plot to take bread out of the mouths
of lawyers and their dependents. Please cease and desist
immediately. I like eating.

I'm currently being paid to research the history of a building so
that the lawyers can argue whether or not, in terms of certain
legislation, the building is or isn't a "house".

Now,, one would think that "house" isn't an ambiguous term, but it
is in legal circles. The definition of a "house" isn't ambiguous,
mind you -- the act defines it -- but whether building (a)
qualifies as a "house" is another matter, and it's not a linguistic
one.

Oy, could I tell you stories! Here's one:

I'm engaged in a major lawsuit right now in which a shipbuilder
contends that the contractual term "total price" equates to the entire
sum of money due it from the Navy, and the Navy contends that it
applies to each contracted-for ship separately. This matters because
the contract price for each ship is not a firm number; it increases as
the cost of the work increases, though not dollar for dollar (there's
a formula for sharing) and only up to a ceiling. There's also a
separate formula for additional price increases to take inflation into
effect. Calculating the actual compensable costs and the ceiling is
not an easy process, but it can be done. The contract provides for a
final calculation of total price after the ship has been delivered,
and that's when all the numbers get reconciled.

The shipbuilders's costs for ships 1 and 2 exceeded the ceiling, but
for ship 3 (the last under the contract) its costs were below the
ceiling. If the shipbuilder is right, it gets to aggregate the three
ships and set off the below-ceiling amount on ship 3 against the
over-ceiling costs on ships 1 and 2. There's only a couple of million
dollars at stake in this contract, but other, larger ones loom.

So okay, what does "total price" mean? Seems easy enough, doesn't it?
-- the aggregate price of all ships under the contract. But when you
read the contract, you discover that the original contract was for one
ship; the others were added later by the exercise of options. Worse,
the calculation of the original price for each ship comes down to a
last line that reads like this "Total Price -- $XXXXXXXXXX," Each
ship has its own total price. And each ship's final total price is
separately negotiated. Also, each ship was paid for out of a separate
annual appropriation. The shipbuilder is well aware that the Navy
cannot use funds appropriated for ship 1 to pay for ship 3, but this
is in essence what it's asking.

Some judge is going to decide what's right, and I'm not trying to tell
you that this case is open and shut in either direction. Quite the
contrary. But if you can get a major lawsuit going over the
definition of "total price," you can get it going over just about
anything. Nothing Peter Olcutt can do will even dent the volume of
litigation over such things -- or of anything else, for that matter.

But it is fun to watch him squirm.

If we had an automated ambiguity checker, this issue would have
been raised before the contract was signed. The contract would
have been amended by simply adding the words "per ship". Yes
this probably would put a lot of lawyers out of work, and thus
reallocated these funds to a more productive use.

Quote:

--
Bob Lieblich
I'll try to remember to report back in five years or so when the case
ends

Peter Olcott
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

"John Flynn" <johnpf@lineone.net> wrote in message news:Xns9701E9B444E0JOHNPF@213.123.26.234...

Quote:

Peter Olcott wrote:

Its like this. We now have an automated spelling checker.
We also have an automated grammar checker.

As in, the one found in Microsoft Word?

I urge you, please, stop digging NOW and you might just be able to
pull yourself out of that hole.

We could have an automated ambiguity checker.

Basically, what you're suggesting is an artificial language, just like
the legions of other conlangs that have been invented in order to,
their inventors claim, aid in logical structure and communication. The
fact that you think yours is English is just an accident since English
is the language you are familiar with and, hey!, it's less work if you
don't have to waste time attending to all those fiddly bits like syntax
and morphology. I understand now.

If it wasn't for the problems with language I would think that you guys

are trying really hard to misunderstand me. No an ambiguity checker
for your word processor. Regular ordinary words.

Quote:

--
johnF
"Everything that is specifically human about our mode of awareness is a
product of our long-standing symbiosis with culture."
-- _A Mind So Rare_, Merlin Donald

Evan Kirshenbaum
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

John Flynn <johnpf@lineone.net> writes:

Quote:

Basically, what you're suggesting is an artificial language, just
like the legions of other conlangs that have been invented in order
to, their inventors claim, aid in logical structure and
communication. The fact that you think yours is English is just an
accident since English is the language you are familiar with and,
hey!, it's less work if you don't have to waste time attending to
all those fiddly bits like syntax and morphology. I understand now.

Those who were around at the time will recall that such lack of
ambiguity has been claimed here in the past for another language (and
will understand why mentioning the language might risk an unwelcome
visitor). In that case it turned out that the claim was based on
exactly such an artificial variant (confused by the claimant with the
(normally ambiguous) living language) created and used by scholars
millenia ago.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |Never attempt to teach a pig to
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |sing; it wastes your time and
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |annoys the pig.
| Robert Heinlein
kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com
(650)857-7572

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

Robert Lieblich
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:05 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

Mike Lyle wrote:

Quote:

Judging from this and a few other recent threads, them dumb tongues
are working overtime.

--
Bob Lieblich
Who doesn't exempt himself

John Flynn
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 10:54 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

Peter Olcott wrote:

Quote:

John Flynn wrote:

Basically, what you're suggesting is an artificial language, just
like the legions of other conlangs that have been invented in order
to, their inventors claim, aid in logical structure and communication.
The fact that you think yours is English is just an accident since
English is the language you are familiar with and, hey!, it's less
work if you don't have to waste time attending to all those fiddly
bits like syntax and morphology. I understand now.

If it wasn't for the problems with language I would think that you
guys are trying really hard to misunderstand me. No an ambiguity
checker for your word processor. Regular ordinary words.

Yeah, regular ordinary words that look like English now, behave like
English now, but are fossilized once-and-for-all in your proposed ISO
Standard Dictionary. And if you suggest that there will be updates
every year to reflect normal language drift, then you haven't got
yourself a set of universal standards... "Hey, Joe, I got your letter
yesterday but were you using the 2005 standards or the 2006? I'm not
sure how to interpret this word on page 2." Historical records would
need to be interpreted with reference to the standards that were
current when the record was written; this is good news for people
selling reprints of previous Standard Dictionaries, but hardly the
result I imagine you envisage for your Standard English. Updates
every so often would go *against* the whole idea of a Standard
vocabulary, leaving the other option of an unchanging lexicon so we
all know what the other person wrote without needing access to an
entire series of updates.

The fact that the words in that dictionary will remain frozen -- by
nature of what the dictionary is meant to achieve -- while the real,
living language will continue to change is where you will see a
divergence over time. Give the system some time (a few generations)
and it will become a separate task to learn your ISO Standard English
after acquiring naturally your contemporary natural English.
In effect, a constructed language using artificial words (albeit a
historical basis) but working on the existing syntax/morphology of
English.

I must say you are showing extreme naivety about how language really
does work, and that's probably the very root of the problem and the
cause of the hostility to your idea that you're seeing here.
In other words: get a clue about what you're dealing with before
telling others how *you* think it should work.

--
johnF
"Trochee, I think. Don't quote me on that."
-- Ben Wolfson, APIHNA, 6 Jan 2000

John Flynn
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 11:10 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:

Quote:

I remember about 5-ish years ago, in another group, there was a sudden
influx of new people simply because I had used the name of A Certain
Language (let's HOPE this is sufficient camouflage). I was told that,
apparently, there were some followers of this artificial language that
would do searches through Deja (as it was then), check out any
discussions involving that language, and join the group temporarily.

--
johnF
"It's OK to teach modern nutrition, but you have to balance it with
something else, such as cannibalism." -- Roger Coppock, talk.origins,
<1130529323.231830.106650@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>

Peter Olcott
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

"John Flynn" <johnpf@lineone.net> wrote in message news:Xns97025AA6941FJOHNPF@213.123.26.234...

Quote:

Peter Olcott wrote:

John Flynn wrote:

Basically, what you're suggesting is an artificial language, just
like the legions of other conlangs that have been invented in order
to, their inventors claim, aid in logical structure and communication.
The fact that you think yours is English is just an accident since
English is the language you are familiar with and, hey!, it's less
work if you don't have to waste time attending to all those fiddly
bits like syntax and morphology. I understand now.

If it wasn't for the problems with language I would think that you
guys are trying really hard to misunderstand me. No an ambiguity
checker for your word processor. Regular ordinary words.

Yeah, regular ordinary words that look like English now, behave like
English now, but are fossilized once-and-for-all in your proposed ISO
Standard Dictionary. And if you suggest that there will be updates
every year to reflect normal language drift, then you haven't got
yourself a set of universal standards... "Hey, Joe, I got your letter
yesterday but were you using the 2005 standards or the 2006? I'm not
sure how to interpret this word on page 2." Historical records would
need to be interpreted with reference to the standards that were
current when the record was written; this is good news for people
selling reprints of previous Standard Dictionaries, but hardly the
result I imagine you envisage for your Standard English. Updates
every so often would go *against* the whole idea of a Standard
vocabulary, leaving the other option of an unchanging lexicon so we
all know what the other person wrote without needing access to an
entire series of updates.

I had already considered this. All of the prior meanings would also be
available using the same online dictionary. One thing that you seem to
keep forgetting. Only people that need to be completely understood
would implement all of the rigors of this proposal in their writing.
For scientists and lawyers it would be universal. For everyone else
is would be never. If you rally wanted to make sure that you are
understood, you would add the ISO standard sense meaning subscript,
and the date that the dictionary was last changed for this entry as
a footnote to your writings. Others could use this system piecemeal
as they need to. When someone said that they didn't know which
meaning that you referred to, you could say ISO standard (2007,5)
The 2007 would be used if this was the only change during the year,
the 5 indicates the fifth sense meaning.

Quote:

The fact that the words in that dictionary will remain frozen -- by
nature of what the dictionary is meant to achieve -- while the real,
living language will continue to change is where you will see a
divergence over time. Give the system some time (a few generations)
and it will become a separate task to learn your ISO Standard English
after acquiring naturally your contemporary natural English.
In effect, a constructed language using artificial words (albeit a
historical basis) but working on the existing syntax/morphology of
English.

I must say you are showing extreme naivety about how language really
does work, and that's probably the very root of the problem and the
cause of the hostility to your idea that you're seeing here.
In other words: get a clue about what you're dealing with before
telling others how *you* think it should work.

--
johnF
"Trochee, I think. Don't quote me on that."
-- Ben Wolfson, APIHNA, 6 Jan 2000

Mike Lyle
Guest

Posted: Wed Nov 02, 2005 8:34 pm Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

Peter Olcott wrote:

Quote:

"Evan Kirshenbaum" <kirshenbaum@hpl.hp.com> wrote in message
[...]
visitor). In that case it turned out that the claim was based on
exactly such an artificial variant (confused by the claimant with
the
(normally ambiguous) living language) created and used by scholars
millenia ago.

And we couldn't keep track of this living language on the web so
that
everyone
will be on the same page?

You might read again what Evan wrote. You could work out which
language he must be referring to. Then you'll be able to answer your
own question.

Quote:

Why do we really need fifty different
dictionaries of
the same Language?
[...]

This is pretty much what we've been telling you for a few days now.
If you won't see the need to read with attention, and don't grasp the
basics, you should be less than confident about your qualifications
for undertaking the project you propose -- and you won't even
understand what the project really is.

--
Mike.

William
Guest

Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:45 am Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying?

Peter Olcott wrote:

Quote:

When someone said that they didn't know which
meaning that you referred to, you could say ISO standard (2007,5)
The 2007 would be used if this was the only change during the year,
the 5 indicates the fifth sense meaning.

So rather than saying, "When I said 'hood', I meant the headgear", one
would say "At para 42.35, the item referred to is
IsoDictionary[143307{2008.06, 7}].

Yes, I see it now. Your way is much clearer.

--
WH

	Vocaboly.com Forum Index -> alt.english.usage	All times are GMT + 1 Hour Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Next
Page 18 of 22

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Office Forum Access Forum Electronics Windows Server Exchange Server
New Topics Powered by phpBB