| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 12:23 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ss18iFp4m9bU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
We could start with an arbitrary dictionary. The choice would be
made
on the basis of which one is the most complete. I would guess
that
this
would be the Oxford. Only the current meaning would be included
in
the first ISO standard.
[...]
And so, with a single deft motion, he reveals that he reads the
OED
with the same scrupulous attention he accords to Usenet postings.
"Only the current meaning", forsooth!
You are just taking the Mick, aren't you? Please tell me it's all
a
joke.
--
Mike.
All of the meanings that a word has ever had in the entire history
of
the
word, would not be relevant to the specific purpose of my proposal.
Primarily this would be a system such that the current meaning of
any
word could be readily accessed.
|
Try "set". It's an extreme example, but it illustrates the problem.
As you know, Acts of Parliament and Congress often carry elaborate
definitions of their key words _for the purposes of the act_. An ISO
lexicon could not -- and I do mean "could not" -- do away with the
need for these appendices to legal documents, technical
specifications, etc. A standardised lexicon, if it worked at all,
would work only for words whose meanings are already agreed on: it
would therefore be useless.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:09 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | to pay for it. Also, it would have to be updated to an extent
which,
I expect, is true of no other ISO standard.
|
Sound.
| Quote: |
(On the subject of UFOs: I found myself recently the only one in a
group of five relatively well-educated people who was skeptical
that
UFOs were craft of any sort. I found this surprising and a bit
depressing.)
|
Well, we are surrounded by people who don't believe in God, but do
believe in, for example, astrology and/or ghosts. There are others
who support Intelligent Design but not the MMR vaccine. Not many
beliefs surprise me, though an awful lot of them depress me.
--
Mike. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Michael DeBusk
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:19 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 07:40:21 -0600, Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> wrote:
| Quote: | It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication
process by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could
refer to.
|
Looks like someone's been in an argument.
Peter: "That's not what I meant!"
Peter's wife: "That's what you said!"
Peter: "You're taking it completely wrong!"
Peter's wife: "Everybody knows what that word means!"
Peter: "There are several different defin..."
Peter's wife: "Oh, stop it! You're always doing that!"
Those are fun. My first was in an online "support forum"... with the
moderator... regarding the meaning of the word "support". :)
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 1:39 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Mike Lyle wrote:
| Quote: | Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[...]
to pay for it. Also, it would have to be updated to an extent
which,
I expect, is true of no other ISO standard.
Sound.
(On the subject of UFOs: I found myself recently the only one in a
group of five relatively well-educated people who was skeptical
that
UFOs were craft of any sort. I found this surprising and a bit
depressing.)
Well, we are surrounded by people who don't believe in God, but do
believe in, for example, astrology and/or ghosts. There are others
who support Intelligent Design but not the MMR vaccine. Not many
beliefs surprise me, though an awful lot of them depress me.
|
In the same group, on the same day, the myth was told about George W.
Bush having said that the French have no word for "entrepreneur." I'd
tried to debunk that before in another real-world group, but people
*want to believe.* One man, who was present at both groups, even
asserted that had heard with his own ears Bush saying it.
I also more than once tried to debunk the notion that German was at one
time up for a vote as the one official language of the US, and from
time to time I say that the person credited with a certain quote is not
proven to have said it. In general, people don't seem to appreciate
such challenges to their pet ideas, so I'm reluctant now to correct
people on such matters. However, I do continue to point out certain
types of errors about language, such as the false belief that people
who pronounce "nuclear" as "nucular" do so out of ignorance (which is
as silly as the belief that people who use habitual "ain't" do so out
of ignorance).
These Usenet groups are a whole 'nother deal, of course. I'm happy to
point out error--or what I see as error--here.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:21 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3ssb0lFpm8jpU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3ss18iFp4m9bU1@individual.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
We could start with an arbitrary dictionary. The choice would be
made
on the basis of which one is the most complete. I would guess
that
this
would be the Oxford. Only the current meaning would be included
in
the first ISO standard.
[...]
And so, with a single deft motion, he reveals that he reads the
OED
with the same scrupulous attention he accords to Usenet postings.
"Only the current meaning", forsooth!
You are just taking the Mick, aren't you? Please tell me it's all
a
joke.
--
Mike.
All of the meanings that a word has ever had in the entire history
of
the
word, would not be relevant to the specific purpose of my proposal.
Primarily this would be a system such that the current meaning of
any
word could be readily accessed.
Try "set". It's an extreme example, but it illustrates the problem.
As you know, Acts of Parliament and Congress often carry elaborate
definitions of their key words _for the purposes of the act_. An ISO
lexicon could not -- and I do mean "could not" -- do away with the
need for these appendices to legal documents, technical
specifications, etc. A standardised lexicon, if it worked at all,
would work only for words whose meanings are already agreed on: it
would therefore be useless.
--
Mike.
It would not be useless because although the relatively general idea |
of the definitions has been agreed upon, there is no other way to
agree on a more precise set of meanings than through a uniform
single standard. In other words we would move from a close
approximation of agreement to a precise specification of agreement.
I agree that the specialized lexicons would still be needed, but,
perhaps not to the same degree. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:24 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Michael DeBusk" <m_debusk@despammed.com> wrote in message news:6r7af.3371$2y.2588@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
| Quote: | On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 07:40:21 -0600, Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> wrote:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication
process by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could
refer to.
Looks like someone's been in an argument.
Peter: "That's not what I meant!"
Peter's wife: "That's what you said!"
Peter: "You're taking it completely wrong!"
Peter's wife: "Everybody knows what that word means!"
Peter: "There are several different defin..."
Peter's wife: "Oh, stop it! You're always doing that!"
Those are fun. My first was in an online "support forum"... with the
moderator... regarding the meaning of the word "support". :)
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?
|
With my system you could simply say ISO Standard English Support(2007, 5)
and be done. If others disagreed, then they could say ISO Standard English
Support(2006, 3). No more endless cycles of word salad. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:28 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Raymond S. Wise" <mplsray@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:1130956754.161766.312260@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Mike Lyle wrote:
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
[...]
to pay for it. Also, it would have to be updated to an extent
which,
I expect, is true of no other ISO standard.
Sound.
(On the subject of UFOs: I found myself recently the only one in a
group of five relatively well-educated people who was skeptical
that
UFOs were craft of any sort. I found this surprising and a bit
depressing.)
Well, we are surrounded by people who don't believe in God, but do
believe in, for example, astrology and/or ghosts. There are others
who support Intelligent Design but not the MMR vaccine. Not many
beliefs surprise me, though an awful lot of them depress me.
In the same group, on the same day, the myth was told about George W.
Bush having said that the French have no word for "entrepreneur." I'd
tried to debunk that before in another real-world group, but people
*want to believe.* One man, who was present at both groups, even
asserted that had heard with his own ears Bush saying it.
|
Apparently he says quite a few pretty stupid things. There is a calendar
that you can buy that has one stupid thing that he has said for every
day of the year. I think its called Bushisms. He only has an IQ in the
top 5%, that would probably make him about the dumbest president
of the United States that we have ever had.
| Quote: |
I also more than once tried to debunk the notion that German was at one
time up for a vote as the one official language of the US, and from
time to time I say that the person credited with a certain quote is not
proven to have said it. In general, people don't seem to appreciate
such challenges to their pet ideas, so I'm reluctant now to correct
people on such matters. However, I do continue to point out certain
types of errors about language, such as the false belief that people
who pronounce "nuclear" as "nucular" do so out of ignorance (which is
as silly as the belief that people who use habitual "ain't" do so out
of ignorance).
These Usenet groups are a whole 'nother deal, of course. I'm happy to
point out error--or what I see as error--here.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rick Wotnaz
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:07 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in
news:en8af.2030$5N1.69@dukeread08:
| Quote: |
"Michael DeBusk" <m_debusk@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:6r7af.3371$2y.2588@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
On Wed, 2 Nov 2005 07:40:21 -0600, Peter Olcott
olcott@att.net> wrote:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the
communication process by having a single standard dictionary
that everyone could refer to.
Looks like someone's been in an argument.
Peter: "That's not what I meant!"
Peter's wife: "That's what you said!"
Peter: "You're taking it completely wrong!"
Peter's wife: "Everybody knows what that word means!"
Peter: "There are several different defin..."
Peter's wife: "Oh, stop it! You're always doing that!"
Those are fun. My first was in an online "support forum"...
with the moderator... regarding the meaning of the word
"support". :)
--
Michael DeBusk, Co-Conspirator to Make the World a Better Place
Did he update http://home.earthlink.net/~debu4335/ yet?
With my system you could simply say ISO Standard English
Support(2007, 5) and be done. If others disagreed, then they
could say ISO Standard English Support(2006, 3). No more endless
cycles of word salad.
|
"It could only mean ISO Standard English Support(2007,5)!"
"No, it means ISO Standard English Support(2006,3)!"
"2007,5!"
"2006,3! What a jerk!"
"You can't use that form of 2006,3 except in the subjunctive!"
"Oh yeah, well consider ISO Standard English Grammar Adjunct
707.31c (2002,8.5). What about that?!"
"But that's ... that's so ISO Standard English Expletive Subset
(13411(2003,2.1))!"
"Sez who?"
etc.
.... so much better.
--
rzed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:07 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to.
|
No, it wouldn't. Wars have been fought over less.
| Quote: | This
dictionary would be published on the web.
|
That's the project defeated straight away, then.
| Quote: | Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary. This
entry would replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be available.
If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry, they would refer to it by
the date that it was made. Example: Absolute(2007)
|
...Until infinity, but not before madness sets in.
| Quote: | Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number.
|
[standard] is redundant there. If it's sequential (1), that's all the
meaning necessary.
| Quote: | If someone
wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that they were referring
to, they could merely include the ISO standard sense meaning number with
the use of the word. Example: Absolute(3).
|
After having looked it up in an extremely big book. We're all going to
need trolleys (5) if we want to have much conversation out-of-doors.
| Quote: | The idea is that everyone would use the same standard communication
protocol within their encoding and decoding meanings using words within the
communication process model.
|
Well, if the above paragraph passes for language, I want none of it.
"Communication process model" indeed!. Go process your own
communication, and don't come back till you can "talk sense" (42).
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:22 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | Primarily this would be a system such that the current meaning of any
word could be readily accessed.
|
Or "dictionary" as it's popularly known. There may be some rival
publications out there already...
http://www.onelook.com
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:24 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1130962043.698232.293920@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to.
No, it wouldn't. Wars have been fought over less.
This
dictionary would be published on the web.
That's the project defeated straight away, then.
Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary. This
entry would replace the prior entry, but the prior entry would still be available.
If anyone needs to refer to a specific prior entry, they would refer to it by
the date that it was made. Example: Absolute(2007)
..Until infinity, but not before madness sets in.
Every sense meaning would have a standard sequential number.
[standard] is redundant there. If it's sequential (1), that's all the
meaning necessary.
|
The third sense meaning would always consistently mean exactly the same
thing. With as many dictionaries as we currently have one is required to
quote the whole meaning to show what sense meaning was intended.
With the ISO Standard dictionary, one would only need to refer to the
standard subscript for that sense meaning.
| Quote: |
If someone
wanted to be completely clear which sense meaning that they were referring
to, they could merely include the ISO standard sense meaning number with
the use of the word. Example: Absolute(3).
After having looked it up in an extremely big book. We're all going to
need trolleys (5) if we want to have much conversation out-of-doors.
The idea is that everyone would use the same standard communication
protocol within their encoding and decoding meanings using words within the
communication process model.
Well, if the above paragraph passes for language, I want none of it.
"Communication process model" indeed!. Go process your own
communication, and don't come back till you can "talk sense" (42).
--
WH
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:27 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1130962968.859209.288290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
Primarily this would be a system such that the current meaning of any
word could be readily accessed.
Or "dictionary" as it's popularly known. There may be some rival
publications out there already...
http://www.onelook.com
--
WH
|
No that is not it. The idea is to provide a system whereby everyone refers
to a singular unified standard set of sense meanings for every word. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Default User
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:53 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | No that is not it. The idea is to provide a system whereby everyone
refers to a singular unified standard set of sense meanings for every
word.
|
At gunpoint?
Brian
--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
William
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 3:58 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "William" <william@lowerknowle.com> wrote in message news:1130962968.859209.288290@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Peter Olcott wrote:
Primarily this would be a system such that the current meaning of any
word could be readily accessed.
Or "dictionary" as it's popularly known. There may be some rival
publications out there already...
http://www.onelook.com
--
WH
No that is not it. The idea is to provide a system whereby everyone refers
to a singular unified standard set of sense meanings for every word.
|
That's my point. "Dictionary" is the bit where the project succeeds.
"Unified Standard" is the bit where the project fails (and it will
fail; the human race will see to that).
--
WH |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 5:36 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Raymond S. Wise wrote:
| Quote: | Iain wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to. This
dictionary would be published on the web. Every time that a sense meaning
for a word changes, another entry is made in this standard dictionary.
Words are required to define words. What is the semantic reference
point?
There is no real need to record senses in an exact way. Record the
precise meaning of "Direct" and let the various senses of "Director"
take care of themselves.
Prescriptivism would be a more sensible approach -- Prescriptivism is
okay for as long as it is known for what it is, e.g. there is nothing
spurious about Esperanto. You could invent a "lingua franca English" if
you wanted, but it'd evolve semantically unless you find a way of
recording meaning as if it were sound, or you have a linguistic rule
binding meaning with morphology, like Esperanto, in which word building
is a part of ordinary speech.
~Iain
Esperanto's method of building up words from roots is useful but
mainly, it seems to me, as a mnemonic aid--although a very useful one,
of course. I've seen discussions about the word for "pink"--"rozkolora"
("rose-colored") is the traditional word, but people have objected to
it on logical grounds. I recently had a discussion about "English
speaker"/"Anglophone": One popular English-Esperanto dictionary has
"Anglaparolanto," but members of an Esperanto newgroup insist the
correct version is "anglalingvano" (literally, "English language
member")--and that does appear to be the term most often encountered. A
typewriter can be a "skribmashino" ("writing machine") or a "typilo"
("typing instrument").
|
The nice thing about Esperanto is that both are correct, just as
"Writing machine" and "typing instrument" are both correct in English,
albethey uglier than typwriter. You have the luxury of choice -- One
might fit your style of poetry more than the other.
There's the community and there's the standard -- The community apply
the standard to their language instinct, so in that sense there are
standard Esperanto words. However, I gathered that in the standard
alone there were no such thing as standard Esperanto words, only
standard Esperanto morphemes, and one-morpheme words, and that
dictionaries simply provide an example vocab' that allows us to learn
it like any other language and deduce from that the meanings of the
morphemes.
Isn't it like a lego-language that nonetheless comes with examples?
| Quote: | One word which is ambiguous in English, Esperanto, and French is
"UFO"/"NIFO" ("neidentigita fluganta objekto"), and OVNI ("objet volant
non identifié"). In all three languages, this can mean either "an
unknown object appearing in the sky (or in space)" or "an
extraterrestrial or interdimensional craft."
|
Hmmm, well one is not really the meaning, just a common assumption
regarding the meaning -- like "England" and "Britain". If I tell you I
have a British accent you may assume I mean an English accent.
Of course, if you descriptively examine the usage patterns, psychology,
etc, you might find that "U.F.O." has two seperate meanings\leximes or
something to that effect, but Esperanto is prescriptive, so such
comparisons cannot be drawn.
By definition, Esperanto meanings can be drawn directly from morphology
as if it were grammar.
However...
| Quote: | There is a deliberate effort with Esperanto to avoid idioms, but there
nevertheless are idioms. The verb "krokodili" ("to crocodile") means to
speak in a national language when having an Esperanto meeting. The
non-literal use of "viewpoint" seems odd to some Esperantists whose
native language doesn't use such a metaphor.
|
The rules of Esperanto are there to be broken whilst providing an
absolute standard nonetheless; In natural languages, rules are erased
if broken enough. Esperanto's idioms need not tread on prescriptivism's
turf. Keepers and regulators of languages can choose to disown them in
their capacity as standards, or suppose that they are outwith the
standard: acceptable but not regulated -- there is always the
unidiomatic language to fall back on. Whether they do this I'm not
sure.
"Touch not" is less idiomatic than "do not touch" but neither stretch
standards of validity, which is what defines a synthetic language.
| Quote: | Esperanto has many advantages over national languages when considered
as an international lingua franca, but the argument that it is a
"logical language" should not be understood to mean that it allows the
speaker to be more logical in thought. Instead, it should be understood
as meaning the language is more regular in word-construction and
grammar and has fewer idioms than the national languages.
|
Right -- It's Meaning, spelling, sound and morphology are tighly and
artificially bound. The more people speak it, the more idioms there
will be, but they need not form part the minimal standard.
| Quote: | In principle, an "ISO dictionary" of the sort imagined by the original
speaker could include such things as "Swiss cheese" being a permissible
label on a list of ingredients in the US when the cheese actually used
in the product could be American-made gruyere (while gruyere sold by
itself could probably not be labeled "Swiss cheese"), while "Swiss
cheese" in Britain means "cheese imported from Switzerland." It would
have to distinguish between various meanings of "UFO": Even among those
who belief UFOs are a type of craft, there are some who believe they
are extraterrestrial spacecraft, some who believe they are
interdimensional craft, and some who believe they are craft, but have
no definite opinion about their source. And someone would have to think
favorably enough of the dictionary idea to pay for it. Also, it would
have to be updated to an extent which, I expect, is true of no other
ISO standard.
|
They are outwith the meaning of U.F.O. The acronym was invented to
transcend all these beliefs and point to the facts: We see these things
without identifying them.
When a U.F.O. lands afront a person, a door opens, and a green man
walks out, they stop calling it a U.F.O.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in