| Author |
Message |
Bill Bonde ('by a commodi
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
the Omrud wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott <olcott@att.net> spake thusly:
|
| 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.
For which dialect of English? American? Scottish? Yorkshire?
Bradford?
You could call it English.Bradford or maybe English.2005.Bradford. I'm |
not sure where to put the year though.
--
Had Tolstoy confined himself to war or peace, he could have been
finished in seven hundred and fifty pages.
--
In a day and age when some people would think nothing of throwing stones
at Rosa Parks, she dared to rock the bus. Bully for her!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Raymond S. Wise
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Iain wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | 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.
|
That was the original meaning of the term. It is still one meaning of
the term but is more rarely used than other meanings.
| Quote: |
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.
|
In this, I was certain you were wrong. A quick search via Google, of "a
* emerged from the UFO" turned up the following:
From
http://www.jewishsf.com/content/2-0-/module/displaystory/story_id/1074/edition_id/10/format/html/displaystory.html
"One afternoon, Moishe Shlabowitz was walking in Golden Gate Park when,
to his utter amazement, a small spaceship landed in front of him. As he
stared at it, a beautiful alien emerged from the UFO and walked toward
him."
From
http://groups.msn.com/UFOParanormalStudies/areufopilotshuman.msnw
"Several seconds passed before a number of beings emerged from the ufo
and walked up to the woman."
From
http://ufoinfo.com/onthisday/March07.html
"A man emerged from the UFO, one similar in appearance to the one
involved in Mrs. Bowles earlier close encounter."
The first is a joke, the other two are not. But the joke follows
current usage. I'm sure changes in the wording of the search would turn
up other examples of the usage, as would a review of the literature of
UFO-"true believers."
One thing which keeps "UFO" as a useful term for the objects in
question when considered to be craft is that for some of those people
who believe the objects are some sort of craft, their true nature is
unknown: Some of the craft might be from other solar systems while
others might be from other dimensions. "UFO" covers both of those
possibilities without the person using them having to commit.
--
Raymond S. Wise
Minneapolis, Minnesota USA
E-mail: mplsray @ yahoo . com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nate Branscom
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 2:16 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
The question(5) I have is: "Why is 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If
you picked(16) the thing up, and you're looking the word up, then you
obviously know(9) it's defintion/use.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:32 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Nate Branscom wrote:
| Quote: | The question(5) I have is: "Why is 'dictionary' in the dictionary?
|
Because although you ken that that you are holding is an example of a
dictionary, you might nonetheless ken not the definition of the word
"dictionary". The thing that you are holding can be described in
correct ways other than the definition.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nate Branscom
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 6:51 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Iain wrote:
| Quote: | Nate Branscom wrote:
The question(5) I have is: "Why is 'dictionary' in the dictionary?
|
| Quote: | Because although you ken that that you are holding is an example of a
dictionary, you might nonetheless ken not the definition of the word
"dictionary".
|
Every dictionary I have ever seen says 'Dictionary" in big letters on
the cover (unless it said 'lexicon', but that's a different story). If
you understand the purpose of a dictionary, then you know it's
defintion. It may not be the 'book' definition, but you are aware of
its meaning.
| Quote: | The thing that you are holding can be described in
correct ways other than the definition.
|
Exactly. So, what's the point?
--Nate
BTW, I'm not being completely serious about all of this. I'm really,
really, bored at work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Iain
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:19 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Nate Branscom wrote:
| Quote: | Iain wrote:
Nate Branscom wrote:
The question(5) I have is: "Why is 'dictionary' in the dictionary?
Because although you ken that that you are holding is an example of a
dictionary, you might nonetheless ken not the definition of the word
"dictionary".
Every dictionary I have ever seen says 'Dictionary" in big letters on
the cover (unless it said 'lexicon', but that's a different story). If
you understand the purpose of a dictionary, then you know it's
defintion. It may not be the 'book' definition, but you are aware of
its meaning.
|
Not necessarily. It might just mean "printed book" -- "Dictionary of
the English language" = "Printed book of the english language", for all
you know, just by looking at it and the title.
You cannot find a definition by only one example.
~Iain |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 03, 2005 7:37 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Nov 2005 15:07:03 -0500, Rick Wotnaz <desparn@wtf.com> wrote:
| Quote: | "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in
news:en8af.2030$5N1.69@dukeread08:
"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!"
|
"2006,3! esc(idiom; "What a jerk!")" shirley.
| Quote: | "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.
-- |
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 3:11 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Nate Branscom" <the_n8ball@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1131002169.421939.130250@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
| Quote: | The question(5) I have is: "Why is 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If
you picked(16) the thing up, and you're looking the word up, then you
obviously know(9) it's defintion/use.
Not as exactly and precisely as possible. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Nate Branscom
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | I wrote:
The question(5) I have is: "Why is 'dictionary' in the dictionary? If
you picked(16) the thing up, and you're looking the word up, then you
obviously know(9) it's defintion/use.
Not as exactly and precisely as possible.
|
Okay(35/47.2)
-- Nate |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Phillipson
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 04, 2005 10:24 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> wrote in message
news:Sk3af.2004$5N1.1772@dukeread08...
| Quote: | It would be relatively easy to greatly improve the communication process
by having a single standard dictionary that everyone could refer to. This
|
You may have missed the boat, which sailed in the International
Encyclopaedia of Unified Science (first 2 vols. published in
Chicago in 1938) if not earlier as well.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Maurer
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:19 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Rick Wotnaz wrote:
Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4)
this(6) proposal (2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)?
Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to (21) look(5) like(
this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God (1341)!
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Not to speak of *reading* which would require
lookups for every word.
Well to be fair, this is something meant
to be read while sitting in front of a computer,
so the reader could turn off all of the markups.
However, adding the sense subscripts is only part
of the writer's job, and the easier part.
He also has to diagram all of the sentences.
And also refer all of the pronouns back to nouns.
And refer some nouns back to other nouns.
"The instrument(3) was beside the arm(2)."
Here the subscript can specify that we are talking
about some kind of measuring instrument rather
than an accordion, but is it the CO2 monitor
or the Geiger counter? Is the arm that of the patient
or of the drawing on the wall? All these details
must be specified in order to get 100%. How would
it be known that one such detail was missed?
(What do we call this process of noun/(class noun)
identification corresponding to noun/pronoun identification?)
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:45 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Richard Maurer" <rcpb1_maurer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:01c5e24e$86249cc0$23c6480c@default...
| Quote: | Rick Wotnaz wrote:
Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4)
this(6) proposal (2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)?
Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to (21) look(5) like(
this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God (1341)!
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Not to speak of *reading* which would require
lookups for every word.
Well to be fair, this is something meant
to be read while sitting in front of a computer,
so the reader could turn off all of the markups.
However, adding the sense subscripts is only part
of the writer's job, and the easier part.
He also has to diagram all of the sentences.
And also refer all of the pronouns back to nouns.
And refer some nouns back to other nouns.
"The instrument(3) was beside the arm(2)."
Here the subscript can specify that we are talking
about some kind of measuring instrument rather
than an accordion, but is it the CO2 monitor
or the Geiger counter? Is the arm that of the patient
or of the drawing on the wall? All these details
must be specified in order to get 100%. How would
it be known that one such detail was missed?
|
That's a whole other problem.My initial goal was to simply
show that it is possible to completely eliminate ambiguity.
Vagueness was not even addressed, yet.
| Quote: |
(What do we call this process of noun/(class noun)
identification corresponding to noun/pronoun identification?)
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 4:51 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Richard Maurer" <rcpb1_maurer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:01c5e24e$86249cc0$23c6480c@default...
| Quote: | Rick Wotnaz wrote:
Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4)
this(6) proposal (2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)?
Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to (21) look(5) like(
this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God (1341)!
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Not to speak of *reading* which would require
lookups for every word.
Well to be fair, this is something meant
to be read while sitting in front of a computer,
so the reader could turn off all of the markups.
However, adding the sense subscripts is only part
of the writer's job, and the easier part.
He also has to diagram all of the sentences.
And also refer all of the pronouns back to nouns.
And refer some nouns back to other nouns.
|
That is a great enhancement. I had some sort of parenthetical
notation in mind. Your idea seems much better.
| Quote: |
"The instrument(3) was beside the arm(2)."
Here the subscript can specify that we are talking
about some kind of measuring instrument rather
than an accordion, but is it the CO2 monitor
or the Geiger counter? Is the arm that of the patient
or of the drawing on the wall? All these details
must be specified in order to get 100%. How would
it be known that one such detail was missed?
(What do we call this process of noun/(class noun)
identification corresponding to noun/pronoun identification?)
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 6:08 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Richard Maurer" <rcpb1_maurer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:01c5e24e$86249cc0$23c6480c@default...
| Quote: | Rick Wotnaz wrote:
Are(1) you(1) completely(4) satisfied(3) that(4)
this(6) proposal (2) is(1) truly(5) practical(4)?
Writing(2) would(1) have(26) to (21) look(5) like(
this(1), for(3) the(5) love(12) of(7) God (1341)!
Bertel Lund Hansen wrote:
Not to speak of *reading* which would require
lookups for every word.
Well to be fair, this is something meant
to be read while sitting in front of a computer,
so the reader could turn off all of the markups.
That's an excellent enhancement too. |
| Quote: |
However, adding the sense subscripts is only part
of the writer's job, and the easier part.
He also has to diagram all of the sentences.
And also refer all of the pronouns back to nouns.
And refer some nouns back to other nouns.
"The instrument(3) was beside the arm(2)."
Here the subscript can specify that we are talking
about some kind of measuring instrument rather
than an accordion, but is it the CO2 monitor
or the Geiger counter? Is the arm that of the patient
or of the drawing on the wall? All these details
must be specified in order to get 100%. How would
it be known that one such detail was missed?
(What do we call this process of noun/(class noun)
identification corresponding to noun/pronoun identification?)
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | That's a whole other problem.My initial goal was to simply
show that it is possible to completely eliminate ambiguity.
Vagueness was not even addressed, yet.
|
And here I thought that "ambiguity(1)" was "vagueness" and
"vagueness(1)" was "ambiguity." If you differentiate them, you're
going to have to tell us how you do so. No ambiguities OR vaguenesses
allowed in the explanation.
--
Bob Lieblich
I go away for three days and this guy hijacks the group |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in