| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:7vmom19772f3vgguepqkoo385d27lqln7m@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:cinnm119itoktg3u5tv6a113885mrmholq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:57:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
Indeed. What system do you use for deciding which of the many
"literal" interpretations is the correct one?
The short answer is the singular most literal one.
I am using methods from the mathematics of pure semantics to derive
singular most literal semantic meaning possible. Where there is only a
single most literal meaning derived, this one is considered to be the
correct one. There is quite often only a singular most literal meaning
derived.
"The mathematics of pure semantics"? Right.
And you don't find that rival interpretations similarly claim to be
the single (or singular) most literal? And you don't see any possible
hint of a contradiction in the juxtaposition of "single" and "most"?
Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
|
If both the exact sense meaning of every word is explicitly specified,
and every reference (such as pronoun to noun reference) is explicitly
documented, by what other means could any sentence derive more
than a single semantic meaning?
| Quote: |
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:7vmom19772f3vgguepqkoo385d27lqln7m@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:cinnm119itoktg3u5tv6a113885mrmholq@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:57:56 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
If the bible is understood literally, it provides an entirely different
message than when it is understood in the same way that fallible
human communication is understood. All those little places where
people "correct" this infallible communication because
{it simply couldn't mean that} changes the meaning entirely.
Indeed. What system do you use for deciding which of the many
"literal" interpretations is the correct one?
The short answer is the singular most literal one.
I am using methods from the mathematics of pure semantics to derive
singular most literal semantic meaning possible. Where there is only a
single most literal meaning derived, this one is considered to be the
correct one. There is quite often only a singular most literal meaning
derived.
"The mathematics of pure semantics"? Right.
And you don't find that rival interpretations similarly claim to be
the single (or singular) most literal? And you don't see any possible
hint of a contradiction in the juxtaposition of "single" and "most"?
|
Of several possible semantic meaning derivations that could
be possibly considered literal, the one that is the most literal?
| Quote: |
Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:52 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 23:07:02 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:7vmom19772f3vgguepqkoo385d27lqln7m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
If both the exact sense meaning of every word is explicitly specified,
and every reference (such as pronoun to noun reference) is explicitly
documented, by what other means could any sentence derive more
than a single semantic meaning?
|
"Meaning" is more than simple semantics.
Oh, never mind. I give up (again).
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:06 pm
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:39rrm1lfhs35jthc3s7djm1ikoit977fkk@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 23:07:02 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:7vmom19772f3vgguepqkoo385d27lqln7m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
If both the exact sense meaning of every word is explicitly specified,
and every reference (such as pronoun to noun reference) is explicitly
documented, by what other means could any sentence derive more
than a single semantic meaning?
"Meaning" is more than simple semantics.
|
Meaning is only derived from the meaning of the words, and the relationships
between the words. The first part is semantics, and the second part is grammar.
If the meaning of the words is made explicit (ISO standard sense meaning numbers),
and the relationships between the words is made explicit by sentence diagramming,
what is left that can possibly cause ambiguity?
Unless and until someone shows that there is something left that can possibly cause
ambiguity, I will continue to assume that I have totally proven my point, there is nothing
left that can cause ambiguity.
| Quote: |
Oh, never mind. I give up (again).
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alan Jones
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 4:22 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:xZobf.235$xE.129@dukeread08...
| Quote: |
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message
news:39rrm1lfhs35jthc3s7djm1ikoit977fkk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 23:07:02 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message
news:7vmom19772f3vgguepqkoo385d27lqln7m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
If both the exact sense meaning of every word is explicitly specified,
and every reference (such as pronoun to noun reference) is explicitly
documented, by what other means could any sentence derive more
than a single semantic meaning?
"Meaning" is more than simple semantics.
Meaning is only derived from the meaning of the words, and the
relationships
between the words. The first part is semantics, and the second part is
grammar.
|
Meaning is derived (to use your curious expression) from the usage of
speakers and writers, not from dictionary entries. The dictionary is there
to record the usage of each word or phrase. Meanings are constantly
changing, sometimes surprisingly fast, and any attempt to stabilise a
language can at best only very slightly delay change.
Combinations of words often acquire senses not readily related to any senses
of the component words. How would your dictionary handle "Please stay -
we'll be happy to put you up for the night", "Please put this poster up for
us", "I really can't put up with his disgraceful behaviour"?
What you are proposing might be rational, but it would have no useful
relationship to the existing English language. You might be interested in
the artificial languages discussed at www.lib.washington.edu/subject/
History/bi/honors251c/art2.pdf , starting with the 17th century proposals of
Francis Lodwick and Bishop John Wilkins and brought up to date with "Ro" and
"Lojban". Their inventors are probably wise to start from scratch rather
than attempt to emasculate and tame an existing one.
Alan Jones |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 07, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
"Alan Jones" <atj@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:iuubf.10187$EE2.3376@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
| Quote: |
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message news:xZobf.235$xE.129@dukeread08...
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:39rrm1lfhs35jthc3s7djm1ikoit977fkk@4ax.com...
On Sat, 5 Nov 2005 23:07:02 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:7vmom19772f3vgguepqkoo385d27lqln7m@4ax.com...
On Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:05:05 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
Most of the ambiguity is stripped away, when every slight
nuance of subjective leeway is eliminated from the semantic meaning
derivation process.
As many of us have, alas, singularly failed to persuade you, it can't
be done. But it's a splendid sentence, and it would really be
churlish of me to quibble about the comma after "away".
If both the exact sense meaning of every word is explicitly specified,
and every reference (such as pronoun to noun reference) is explicitly
documented, by what other means could any sentence derive more
than a single semantic meaning?
"Meaning" is more than simple semantics.
Meaning is only derived from the meaning of the words, and the relationships
between the words. The first part is semantics, and the second part is grammar.
Meaning is derived (to use your curious expression) from the usage of speakers and writers, not from dictionary entries. The
dictionary is there
|
That's the whole problem. People make up definitions to words that have
little if anything to do with accepted conventions, and then fail to communicate
that they ever made these changes. This process is inherently erroneous,
unless these new definitions are explicitly specified.
| Quote: | to record the usage of each word or phrase. Meanings are constantly changing, sometimes surprisingly fast, and any attempt to
stabilise a language can at best only very slightly delay change.
Combinations of words often acquire senses not readily related to any senses of the component words. How would your dictionary
handle "Please stay - we'll be happy to put you up for the night", "Please put this poster up for us", "I really can't put up with
his disgraceful behaviour"?
|
It would seem that some of those meanings are clearly idiomatic.
I would prefer to simply rule idioms are incorrect. Alternatively
these idiomatic phrases could have their own sense meanings.
| Quote: |
What you are proposing might be rational, but it would have no useful relationship to the existing English language. You might be
interested in the artificial languages discussed at www.lib.washington.edu/subject/ History/bi/honors251c/art2.pdf , starting with
the 17th century proposals of Francis Lodwick and Bishop John Wilkins and brought up to date with "Ro" and "Lojban". Their
inventors are probably wise to start from scratch rather than attempt to emasculate and tame an existing one.
Alan Jones
This whole process will necessarily need to be done to get machines to fully |
comprehend English. Might as well get a double benefit from a single effort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 2:27 am
Post subject: Re: Exactly what is this most literally saying? |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | I will continue to assume that I have totally proven my point
|
Motto! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in