| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 8:00 am
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436D7CF3.6D06ADAD@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
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.
|
Ambiguity is when a sentence derives more than a single semantic
meaning. This is often because words have more than one sense
meaning, and is its not clear from the context which one is intended.
It can also occur with reference such as pronoun referring back to
its noun.
Vagueness is inherent in the meaning of some words.
EXAMPLE:
How long will it be before you get here?
It will be a while.
How long is a while?
Quite a while.
Richard Maurer added two more enhancements to the ISO
standard dictionary idea:
(1) The ability to make the sense meaning subscripts visible, or
invisible, as the document is being read on a computer.
(2) Some sort of sentence diagramming such that the writer can
exactly specify such things as the pronoun reference to its noun.
So it seems that the combined ideas of the ISO standard sense
meaning subscripts along with some method of explicitly
specifying references between words in a sentence, essentially
eliminates all ambiguity.
| Quote: |
--
Bob Lieblich
I go away for three days and this guy hijacks the group |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:10 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436D7CF3.6D06ADAD@verizon.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
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.
Ambiguity is when a sentence derives more than a single semantic
meaning.
|
I believe your usage here is non-idiomatic. Readers derive meanings
from sentences. Sentences don't derive meanings.
| Quote: | This is often because words have more than one sense
meaning, and is its not clear from the context which one is intended.
It can also occur with reference such as pronoun referring back to
its noun.
Vagueness is inherent in the meaning of some words.
|
"Some"?
| Quote: | EXAMPLE:
How long will it be before you get here?
It will be a while.
How long is a while?
Quite a while.
|
I could rewrite your text by replacing "ambiguity" with "vagueness"
and vice versa, and it would make just as much (or little) sense as it
does now. You have reached the point of defining terms uniquely. I
suppose that was bound to happen.
| Quote: | Richard Maurer added two more enhancements to the ISO
standard dictionary idea:
(1) The ability to make the sense meaning subscripts visible, or
invisible, as the document is being read on a computer.
(2) Some sort of sentence diagramming such that the writer can
exactly specify such things as the pronoun reference to its noun.
So it seems that the combined ideas of the ISO standard sense
meaning subscripts along with some method of explicitly
specifying references between words in a sentence, essentially
eliminates all ambiguity.
|
Nonsense. You're dressing up a unicorn.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who should know better |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 06, 2005 10:18 pm
Post subject: Re: ISO Standard Dictionary of the English Language |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436E0EE9.4766DD4E@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436D7CF3.6D06ADAD@verizon.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
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.
Ambiguity is when a sentence derives more than a single semantic
meaning.
I believe your usage here is non-idiomatic. Readers derive meanings
from sentences. Sentences don't derive meanings.
This is often because words have more than one sense
meaning, and is its not clear from the context which one is intended.
It can also occur with reference such as pronoun referring back to
its noun.
Vagueness is inherent in the meaning of some words.
"Some"?
EXAMPLE:
How long will it be before you get here?
It will be a while.
How long is a while?
Quite a while.
I could rewrite your text by replacing "ambiguity" with "vagueness"
and vice versa, and it would make just as much (or little) sense as it
does now. You have reached the point of defining terms uniquely. I
suppose that was bound to happen.
|
Perhaps some people are emotionally attached to preconceived notions,
however, the dictionary holds my distinction between vagueness and ambiguity.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ambiguous
essentially: derives more than one meaning
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vague
essentially: derives an imprecise meaning
There is an essential difference between the two semantic meanings
specified above. Because there is no ISO standard dictionary people
are free to make anything mean anything, thus symbolic labels attached
to these two distinct semantic meanings might often be reversed.
| Quote: |
Richard Maurer added two more enhancements to the ISO
standard dictionary idea:
(1) The ability to make the sense meaning subscripts visible, or
invisible, as the document is being read on a computer.
(2) Some sort of sentence diagramming such that the writer can
exactly specify such things as the pronoun reference to its noun.
So it seems that the combined ideas of the ISO standard sense
meaning subscripts along with some method of explicitly
specifying references between words in a sentence, essentially
eliminates all ambiguity.
Nonsense. You're dressing up a unicorn.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who should know better |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in