| Author |
Message |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:05 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Robert Lieblich wrote:
| Quote: | "Laura F. Spira" wrote:
John Dean wrote:
Laura F. Spira wrote:
Robert Lieblich wrote:
--
Bob Lieblich
Which way to the egress?
Follow me or we'll all end up with egrets. A crash helmet is
useful if one is engaged in banging one's head against a brick
wall.
Egrets? I've had a few ...
I admire the stamina and optimism of those who have contributed
at
least three posts to this thread.
Does that include the OP?
The OP is a bot. There's no other explanation. The guy who scares
me
is the creator of the bot.
|
Well, it did occur to me to wonder if this was some kind of Turing
test. I failed.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:21 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
| Quote: | Yes but didn't you read the reply by a Navy attorney where they
can't resolve exactly and precisely what a price of a ship is?
There are many millions of dollars that hang in the balance all
because
of ambiguity that was not explicitly specified. If a person were to
have
rigorously went through the contract word-by-word, explicitly
making
sure that there is no ambiguity, this problem would have never
arisen. |
I go away for the weekend, and I come back to find this raving
insanity is still en vigueur! Mon dieu, il bave, le mec! A dictionary
proposed by somebody who can say "were to have rigorously went"?
Never mind one who won't accept that some people know better than he
does what "none" meant in 1611? Peter, you just don't begin to
understand any of the seven types of ambiguity. Just accept that this
is not your field, and get to work on stuff you are good at: at this,
you're a beginner. No, not even a beginner: a beginner knows he's a
beginner, and is willing to learn. Do what you're good at, make
money, win awards, write a book about it. Leave the language bit to
somebody else. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mike Lyle
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:33 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
| Quote: | On 07 Nov 2005, Richard R. Hershberger wrote
Harvey Van Sickle wrote:
On 06 Nov 2005, Paul Wolff wrote
-snip-
I work on the basis that most people have a "nice" layer,
and when one has found it, one shouldn't upset the applecart
by seeking to penetrate further (farther?).
I'd use "further"; "farther" implies physical rather than
metaphorical distance to me.
Whereas in my idiolect the two words are true synonyms. Can
we still be friends?
As long as we don't take it any further than that -- sure!
|
You two are making an old man rather happy: I still don't know which
is which, and a get-out clause is more than welcome. Till now, I just
knew that whichever I used was going to be wrong: I'll be celebrating
for the next week. I may even text the kids about it.
--
Mike.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 6:33 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Mike Lyle" <mike_lyle_uk@REMOVETHISyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:3ta5rvFru9esU1@individual.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[...]
Yes but didn't you read the reply by a Navy attorney where they
can't resolve exactly and precisely what a price of a ship is?
There are many millions of dollars that hang in the balance all
because
of ambiguity that was not explicitly specified. If a person were to
have
rigorously went through the contract word-by-word, explicitly
making
sure that there is no ambiguity, this problem would have never
arisen.
I go away for the weekend, and I come back to find this raving
insanity is still en vigueur! Mon dieu, il bave, le mec! A dictionary
proposed by somebody who can say "were to have rigorously went"?
Never mind one who won't accept that some people know better than he
does what "none" meant in 1611? Peter, you just don't begin to
understand any of the seven types of ambiguity. Just accept that this
is not your field, and get to work on stuff you are good at: at this,
you're a beginner. No, not even a beginner: a beginner knows he's a
beginner, and is willing to learn. Do what you're good at, make
money, win awards, write a book about it. Leave the language bit to
somebody else.
What seven types of ambiguity, are you mixing ambiguity with vagueness? |
I only see two types of ambiguity, word sense meanings, and references
of one word to another. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:33 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | Yes but didn't you read the reply by a Navy attorney where they
can't resolve exactly and precisely what a price of a ship is?
|
Yes, and I'm that Navy attorney, and I have spent almost forty years
trying to figure out, in very specific cases, what contracts mean. My
point is not that greater precision cannot be attained -- of course it
can. My point is that the degree of semantic precision of which you
dream is beyond the ability of humanity to specify. My example was
one among many.
| Quote: | There are many millions of dollars that hang in the balance all because
of ambiguity that was not explicitly specified. If a person were to have
rigorously went through the contract word-by-word, explicitly making
sure that there is no ambiguity, this problem would have never arisen.
|
And if I could separately analyze the health of each cell of your
body, I might be able to keep you living forever. Most ambiguities
arise from one of two circumstances -- (1) different understandings,
not communicated by each party to the other, of what is specified, and
(2) the occurrence of a situation for which the parties didn't
provide. Unless your contract is of infinite length, you can't cover
everything. Oy, could I tell you stories! But let's not put the
whole newsgroup to sleep.
I'll make you a deal -- If you'll admit that it is impossible to
eliminate all ambiguity from the English language, I'll admit that it
is possible, at least in certain contexts, to use the language with
less ambiguity than is now the case. If you want to work to reduce
ambiguity, more power to you. But I understand you to be saying that
it is possible so to write and interpret English as to remove all
ambiguity, at least in certain contexts. Except perhaps at the "See
Jane run" level, that is impossible.
And I have a couple of questions for you, which take us back to your
original quotation of an English translation of Isaiah: Do you
content that the "most literal meaning" of that passage, as determined
by you, represents any sort of reality, or is it just an exercise in
mapping? If the former, what is that reality, and what your
justification? If the latter, why bother?
--
Bob Lieblich
Who is beginning to think that there is a bottom to all this |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:46 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | Without the ISO dictionary, one would be free to use any source for
vague terms. With the dictionary, only one source is allowed. This
ordinary meaning of the word price, while refusing other definitions
would have been sufficient to rule in the Navy's favor. The alternative
meaning was more obscure.
|
I wonder if you are aware that in the contract I was speaking of, the
following are among the terms used (and, to the extent possible,
defined): target price, ceiling price, total price, adjusted price,
final price. We also have a target cost, a target profit, and a point
of total assumption. It takes a computer to determine the price of
each ship at any moment in the construction process.
And what do you think the contract looks like? The basic contract is
more than a hundred single-spaced pages long, and that doesn't include
the technical specification, which is probably about 300 pages, or a
few hundred drawings. There are also hundreds of standard Navy
contract clauses that appear in published regulations, many of which
are several pages long, and many of those clauses are incorporated by
reference (in a list of clauses so incorporated) without being fully
set forth in the text of the contract. Those clauses in turn
incorporate various other clauses and regulations by reference. And
so on to several levels of incorporation. Then there are the
amendments to the contract (we call them "contract modifications", but
"amendment" is the standard legal term), which number in the hundreds
and can run to dozens of pages each. Many of them change one or more
of the various prices.
If you could, in fact, assemble in one place complete copies of
everything in the basic text or incorporated by reference at all
levels, you'd probably fill a small room floor to ceiling. If seven
lawyers with seven pencils reviewed it for half a year, do you
suppose, I ask you, that they could make it clear? I doubt it.[1]
Fortunately for my long-term fiscal well-being, your dream will remain
just that. What you're selling, I ain't buying.
[1] And shed a bitter tear.
--
Bob Lieblich
I am the Walrus |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 7:55 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
| Quote: |
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote
The more I read your messages the less clear I am about who will
use your proposed highly regimented and formalised dialect of
English.
I have already explicitly specified this about a dozen times.
This is used for formal documents such as business contracts
and scientific studies.
Ah! Like end-user license agreements and insurance policies. "You
thought it said 'pay(3)'? I'm sorry, the document clearly says
'pay(17)', so if you'll consult the standard dictionary, you'll see
that *you* owe *us* ten thousand dollars. Will that be cash, check,
or a term of indenture?"
|
Did you know that you can pay a debt by offset? You owe me a thousand
dollars. I owe you a thousand dollars. We sign some papers. Voila!
Both debts have been paid. Or the bank holds a thousand dollars or
more of your money in a savings account and you miss sending a check
for a thousand dollars to make the monthly mortgage payment. The bank
takes a thousand dollars from your savings account and deducts a
thousand dollars from the amount due on the mortgage (principal and
interest, however those numbers work). Again, payment. For most
purposes, that is, but not all. And of course there are other
variants, like the assignment of one debt as substitute for another.
And some forms of attempted payments can be refused, while others
(legal tender) must be accepted. Not to mention that the parties can
make their own arrangements, within reason, contrary to standard
practice. There are approximately 55 separate legal jurisdictions in
the US alone, and I'll bet no two have exactly the same law with
respect to all aspects of payment.
And all this is to be reduced to the word "pay" and some index
numbers? You could spend a day just working through all the nuances
to decide which version you want. And almost all that work would be
pointless.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who would like to be paid for this post |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JF
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:01 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
X-No-Archive: yes
In message <1131395825.975685.108750@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
Richard R. Hershberger <rrhersh@acme.com> writes
| Quote: | I don't know how familiar you are with legal documents, but they
routinely include definitions.
|
English parliamentary draughtsmen are having a hell of a time trying to
work out the difference between 'inciting hatred' and 'inciting
dislike'.
--
James Follett |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wood Avens
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 1:55 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:33:06 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: | What seven types of ambiguity, are you mixing ambiguity with vagueness?
I only see two types of ambiguity, word sense meanings, and references
of one word to another.
|
You really haven't researched this, have you? Try
http://www.nurturingpotential.net/Issue8/Language8.htm
for a quick impression of this seminal book.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:32 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436FF260.AAEFE7A4@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
Yes but didn't you read the reply by a Navy attorney where they
can't resolve exactly and precisely what a price of a ship is?
Yes, and I'm that Navy attorney, and I have spent almost forty years
trying to figure out, in very specific cases, what contracts mean. My
point is not that greater precision cannot be attained -- of course it
can. My point is that the degree of semantic precision of which you
dream is beyond the ability of humanity to specify. My example was
one among many.
Without automated assistance. |
| Quote: |
There are many millions of dollars that hang in the balance all because
of ambiguity that was not explicitly specified. If a person were to have
rigorously went through the contract word-by-word, explicitly making
sure that there is no ambiguity, this problem would have never arisen.
And if I could separately analyze the health of each cell of your
body, I might be able to keep you living forever. Most ambiguities
arise from one of two circumstances -- (1) different understandings,
not communicated by each party to the other, of what is specified, and
(2) the occurrence of a situation for which the parties didn't
provide. Unless your contract is of infinite length, you can't cover
everything. Oy, could I tell you stories! But let's not put the
whole newsgroup to sleep.
I'll make you a deal -- If you'll admit that it is impossible to
eliminate all ambiguity from the English language, I'll admit that it
is possible, at least in certain contexts, to use the language with
less ambiguity than is now the case. If you want to work to reduce
ambiguity, more power to you. But I understand you to be saying that
it is possible so to write and interpret English as to remove all
ambiguity, at least in certain contexts. Except perhaps at the "See
Jane run" level, that is impossible.
And I have a couple of questions for you, which take us back to your
original quotation of an English translation of Isaiah: Do you
content that the "most literal meaning" of that passage, as determined
by you, represents any sort of reality, or is it just an exercise in
It is the ultimate reality. |
| Quote: | mapping? If the former, what is that reality, and what your
justification? If the latter, why bother?
--
Bob Lieblich
Who is beginning to think that there is a bottom to all this |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:33 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436FF581.BBC2912D@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
Without the ISO dictionary, one would be free to use any source for
vague terms. With the dictionary, only one source is allowed. This
ordinary meaning of the word price, while refusing other definitions
would have been sufficient to rule in the Navy's favor. The alternative
meaning was more obscure.
I wonder if you are aware that in the contract I was speaking of, the
following are among the terms used (and, to the extent possible,
defined): target price, ceiling price, total price, adjusted price,
It looks like you were a little vague on ceiling price. |
| Quote: | final price. We also have a target cost, a target profit, and a point
of total assumption. It takes a computer to determine the price of
each ship at any moment in the construction process.
And what do you think the contract looks like? The basic contract is
more than a hundred single-spaced pages long, and that doesn't include
the technical specification, which is probably about 300 pages, or a
few hundred drawings. There are also hundreds of standard Navy
contract clauses that appear in published regulations, many of which
are several pages long, and many of those clauses are incorporated by
reference (in a list of clauses so incorporated) without being fully
set forth in the text of the contract. Those clauses in turn
incorporate various other clauses and regulations by reference. And
so on to several levels of incorporation. Then there are the
amendments to the contract (we call them "contract modifications", but
"amendment" is the standard legal term), which number in the hundreds
and can run to dozens of pages each. Many of them change one or more
of the various prices.
If you could, in fact, assemble in one place complete copies of
everything in the basic text or incorporated by reference at all
levels, you'd probably fill a small room floor to ceiling. If seven
lawyers with seven pencils reviewed it for half a year, do you
suppose, I ask you, that they could make it clear? I doubt it.[1]
Fortunately for my long-term fiscal well-being, your dream will remain
just that. What you're selling, I ain't buying.
Until automated assistance is available. |
| Quote: |
[1] And shed a bitter tear.
--
Bob Lieblich
I am the Walrus |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:35 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436FF76E.87A84F01@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Evan Kirshenbaum wrote:
"Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net> writes:
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote
The more I read your messages the less clear I am about who will
use your proposed highly regimented and formalised dialect of
English.
I have already explicitly specified this about a dozen times.
This is used for formal documents such as business contracts
and scientific studies.
Ah! Like end-user license agreements and insurance policies. "You
thought it said 'pay(3)'? I'm sorry, the document clearly says
'pay(17)', so if you'll consult the standard dictionary, you'll see
that *you* owe *us* ten thousand dollars. Will that be cash, check,
or a term of indenture?"
Did you know that you can pay a debt by offset? You owe me a thousand
dollars. I owe you a thousand dollars. We sign some papers. Voila!
Both debts have been paid. Or the bank holds a thousand dollars or
more of your money in a savings account and you miss sending a check
for a thousand dollars to make the monthly mortgage payment. The bank
takes a thousand dollars from your savings account and deducts a
thousand dollars from the amount due on the mortgage (principal and
interest, however those numbers work). Again, payment. For most
purposes, that is, but not all. And of course there are other
variants, like the assignment of one debt as substitute for another.
And some forms of attempted payments can be refused, while others
(legal tender) must be accepted. Not to mention that the parties can
make their own arrangements, within reason, contrary to standard
practice. There are approximately 55 separate legal jurisdictions in
the US alone, and I'll bet no two have exactly the same law with
respect to all aspects of payment.
And all this is to be reduced to the word "pay" and some index
numbers? You could spend a day just working through all the nuances
to decide which version you want. And almost all that work would be
pointless.
--
Bob Lieblich
Who would like to be paid for this post
With my proposal every word would have a precise and exact default meaning |
that if not explicitly over-ridden becomes the actual meaning. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:40 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message news:tpi0n1t82viu2l8jv1f3mkmbkng7qjd9aj@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:33:06 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
What seven types of ambiguity, are you mixing ambiguity with vagueness?
I only see two types of ambiguity, word sense meanings, and references
of one word to another.
You really haven't researched this, have you? Try
http://www.nurturingpotential.net/Issue8/Language8.htm
for a quick impression of this seminal book.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Like I said, only two types, the below is a direct quote from your source. |
Two different types of ambiguity can be distinguished on the basis of what is causing it: lexical ambiguity is the type of ambiguity
that arises when a word has multiple meanings. The word bank is often cited as an instance of lexical ambiguity; and structural
ambiguity that arises from the fact that two or more different syntactic structures can be assigned to one string of words. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Laura F Spira
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:54 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Wood Avens" <woodavens@askjennison.com> wrote in message
news:tpi0n1t82viu2l8jv1f3mkmbkng7qjd9aj@4ax.com...
On Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:33:06 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
What seven types of ambiguity, are you mixing ambiguity with
vagueness? I only see two types of ambiguity, word sense
meanings, and references of one word to another.
You really haven't researched this, have you? Try
http://www.nurturingpotential.net/Issue8/Language8.htm for a quick
impression of this seminal book.
--
Katy Jennison
spamtrap: remove the first two letters after the @
Like I said, only two types, the below is a direct quote from your
source.
Two different types of ambiguity can be distinguished on the basis of
what is causing it: lexical ambiguity is the type of ambiguity that
arises when a word has multiple meanings. The word bank is often
cited as an instance of lexical ambiguity; and structural ambiguity
that arises from the fact that two or more different syntactic
structures can be assigned to one string of words.
Your quotation is from a comment on that page contributed by some other |
person, not Empson. Katy was suggesting that you read Empson and
provided you with a page which gives a brief summary of his book - the
seven types are summarised higher up on the page but you seem to have
deliberately selected something that supports your argument, rather than
considering the argument to which you were (helpfully) directed. It is a
very long time since I have encountered a mind so firmly closed.
--
Laura
(emulate St. George for email) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard R. Hershberger
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:58 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
| Quote: | "Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436FF76E.87A84F01@verizon.net...
And all this is to be reduced to the word "pay" and some index
numbers? You could spend a day just working through all the nuances
to decide which version you want. And almost all that work would be
pointless.
With my proposal every word would have a precise and exact default meaning
that if not explicitly over-ridden becomes the actual meaning.
|
It occurs to me that this proposal would be a godsend for contract
lawyers. Bob, do you suppose that Peter is actually a shill for the
ABA?
Richard R. Hershberger |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in