| Author |
Message |
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 1:07 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Laura F Spira" <laura@DRAGONspira.fsbusiness.co.uk> wrote in message news:dkql7a$hfg$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
"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)
|
It seems that those other variations of ambiguity would still
boil down to the two that I provided. Most of the examples
were themselves vague and ambiguous. They were concerned
with things such as the true meaning of a poem. Most of the
examples were poems.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Duncanson
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:51 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:32:06 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrote:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436FF260.AAEFE7A4@verizon.net...
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.
|
Are not humans required to provide the semantics via your projected ISO
English Dictionary Project?
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:14 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Peter Duncanson" <mail@peterduncanson.net> wrote in message news:dn12n1tup7ntik767a078r8orvcvsbj92b@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 10:32:06 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrote:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:436FF260.AAEFE7A4@verizon.net...
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.
Are not humans required to provide the semantics via your projected ISO
English Dictionary Project?
|
Yes. Your million page contract has shown that ambiguity can not
be sufficiently checked by people. To make the idea really work
we would need an ambiguity checker, that works like a spell checker
or grammar checker. This would probably have to be applied to the
ISO dictionary as it is being constructed. Any machine smart enough
to discern ambiguity, could probably also discover gaps in reasoning.
| Quote: |
--
Peter Duncanson
UK (posting from a.e.u) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:38 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
| Quote: |
Peter Olcott wrote:
"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?
|
He may even be a lawyer himself. He's astoundingly good at
reiterating his points and ignoring mine.
Anyway, I smoked him out in another post, where he allows as how the
"most literal meaning" is "the ultimate reality." So if what he
decides is the "most literal meaning" of a short passage from Isaiah
establishes that God is all there is and that nothing else of any sort
exists, that's "the ultimate reality."
Don't bother Peter Olcott with such frills as the original language,
verbal context, of historical context. This whole thing is not only
his profession (or avocation, or whatever) but his religion. I think
it'll be easier to convert the Pope to atheism than to persuade Peter
Olcott of his error.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to confer with His Holiness about
whether God exists.
--
Bob Lieblich
Calling Alitalia |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:16 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:437128E6.82321182@verizon.net...
| Quote: | "Richard R. Hershberger" wrote:
Peter Olcott wrote:
"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?
He may even be a lawyer himself. He's astoundingly good at
reiterating his points and ignoring mine.
Anyway, I smoked him out in another post, where he allows as how the
"most literal meaning" is "the ultimate reality." So if what he
decides is the "most literal meaning" of a short passage from Isaiah
establishes that God is all there is and that nothing else of any sort
exists, that's "the ultimate reality."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism |
| Quote: |
Don't bother Peter Olcott with such frills as the original language,
verbal context, of historical context. This whole thing is not only
his profession (or avocation, or whatever) but his religion. I think
it'll be easier to convert the Pope to atheism than to persuade Peter
Olcott of his error.
|
This whole conversion began with the original language, and its most
literal translation.
L'maan In order that
yedoo they (will) know
meemezraH-shemesh from the shining of the sun (the east)
umeemaravah and from the west
kee-ephes that there is no one (zero)
beeladai besides Me;
Anee YHVH I am HaShem
v'ain and there is not
ode. another.
Some context supercedes other context. What if there was
one little sentence in the bible that said: "God doesn't really exist."
How would that effect the context of everything else that the bible
says? Would it supercede everything else, or would people simply
choose to ignore this one little sentence?
| Quote: |
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to confer with His Holiness about
whether God exists.
--
Bob Lieblich
Calling Alitalia |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 6:56 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
'[ ... ]
| Quote: | Some context supercedes
|
"Supersedes," dammit.
| Quote: | other context. What if there was
one little sentence in the bible that said: "God doesn't really exist."
How would that effect
|
"affect," dammit.
| Quote: | the context of everything else that the bible
says? Would it supercede
|
That's twice.
| Quote: | everything else, or would people simply
choose to ignore this one little sentence?
|
How the hell should I know? You're the one who finds eternal verities
in a few words of one English version of the Bible.
Have you ever seen those lists of paired cliches that contradict each
other, the likes of
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder -- out of sight, out of mind?"
You can perform a similar task with the Bible, finding passages that
contradict each other.
But I don't suppose that that would serve your purpose, which I gather
is to find some one eternal truth and cling to it however you can.
Well, okay, if you want to devote your life to persuading everyone in
the world that a few words in a fairly ancient English translation of
Isaiah are a description of the ultimate reality, you just go right
ahead and do so. But don't ask me to buy into it.
As far as I can tell, you respond to Evan Kirshenbaum's interpretation
of the original Hebrew text and its immediate context by denying its
relevance. Again -- okay, fine. But why you think anyone should be
persuaded by this is beyond me. I was never very good at
understanding the motivation of cranks. It appears that I haven't
improved.
--
Bob Lieblich
A bit of a crank himself, perhaps |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 7:21 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:43713B49.6C9997BB@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
'[ ... ]
Some context supercedes
"Supersedes," dammit.
WRONG! Both are valid. |
| Quote: |
other context. What if there was
one little sentence in the bible that said: "God doesn't really exist."
How would that effect
"affect," dammit.
I have never used this word. It looks like you are right on this one |
At least according to dictionary.com. I am not a grammarian, I
am a logician.
| Quote: |
the context of everything else that the bible
says? Would it supercede
That's twice.
everything else, or would people simply
choose to ignore this one little sentence?
How the hell should I know? You're the one who finds eternal verities
in a few words of one English version of the Bible.
|
You were so picky about irrelevant points that you missed the point.
It is obvious how people would respond, the same way that they are
responding here. If the bible has any verses that supercede all other
verses, they are simply ignored.
John 17:21 confirms my meaning of Isaiah 45:6, when taken literally.
| Quote: |
Have you ever seen those lists of paired cliches that contradict each
other, the likes of
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder -- out of sight, out of mind?"
You can perform a similar task with the Bible, finding passages that
contradict each other.
But I don't suppose that that would serve your purpose, which I gather
is to find some one eternal truth and cling to it however you can.
Well, okay, if you want to devote your life to persuading everyone in
the world that a few words in a fairly ancient English translation of
Isaiah are a description of the ultimate reality, you just go right
ahead and do so. But don't ask me to buy into it.
As far as I can tell, you respond to Evan Kirshenbaum's interpretation
of the original Hebrew text and its immediate context by denying its
relevance. Again -- okay, fine. But why you think anyone should be
persuaded by this is beyond me. I was never very good at
understanding the motivation of cranks. It appears that I haven't
improved.
--
Bob Lieblich
A bit of a crank himself, perhaps |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:4371764F.D70C3DB7@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
You still did not reply to my recommendation to how the ceiling price
could have been defined.
I was trying to do you a favor. You had no idea what you were talking
about. That's my reply.
[ ... ]
I'm going to do my absolute best to ignore you henceforth. Attempts
at dialogue are unproductive, and even insulting you is becoming dull.
--
Bob Lieblich
Let's see if I can do it
|
I hope you get riffed |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Bob Cunningham wrote:
| Quote: |
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:56:57 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
Peter Olcott wrote:
'[ ... ]
Some context supercedes
"Supersedes," dammit.
If this were the best of all possible prescriptivist worlds,
"supersede" would be right and "supercede" would be wrong.
But -- darnit -- dictionaries say that "supercede" is a
variant spelling of "supersede".
|
Some do. Most don't. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother, but I was
replying to a guy who says he can slice English finer than the finest
baloney, and he doesn't even know the preferred spelling of
"supersede." He deserves far worse than I gave him.
[ ... ]
| Quote: | Have you ever seen those lists of paired cliches that contradict each
other, the likes of
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder -- out of sight, out of mind?"
He who hesitates is lost -- look before you leap.
Incidentally, since punctuation involving quotes and stops
is a frequent topic of discussion here, let it be noted that
Robert should have put his question mark outside the quotes
-- following either British or American conventions.
|
Absolutely right.
| Quote: | I'm sure he knows that, though, so let's call it a typo.
|
If you'll believe me, I do know. It is a typo. Skitt's Law, more or
less.
[ ... ]
--
Bob Lieblich
Hoping this is his last post to this thread |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:43717263.164C28DD@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Bob Cunningham wrote:
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:56:57 -0500, Robert Lieblich
robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
Peter Olcott wrote:
'[ ... ]
Some context supercedes
"Supersedes," dammit.
If this were the best of all possible prescriptivist worlds,
"supersede" would be right and "supercede" would be wrong.
But -- darnit -- dictionaries say that "supercede" is a
variant spelling of "supersede".
Some do. Most don't. Ordinarily I wouldn't bother, but I was
replying to a guy who says he can slice English finer than the finest
baloney, and he doesn't even know the preferred spelling of
"supersede." He deserves far worse than I gave him.
|
You still did not reply to my recommendation to how the ceiling price
could have been defined. In my opinion the Government would have
probably been right by using the ordinary definition of price. It is more
than likely that the contractor was just scamming. I used to work for
the U.S. Army COE, and the chief of our engineering division told me
that's SOP for contractors.
| Quote: |
[ ... ]
Have you ever seen those lists of paired cliches that contradict each
other, the likes of
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder -- out of sight, out of mind?"
He who hesitates is lost -- look before you leap.
Incidentally, since punctuation involving quotes and stops
is a frequent topic of discussion here, let it be noted that
Robert should have put his question mark outside the quotes
-- following either British or American conventions.
Absolutely right.
I'm sure he knows that, though, so let's call it a typo.
If you'll believe me, I do know. It is a typo. Skitt's Law, more or
less.
[ ... ]
--
Bob Lieblich
Hoping this is his last post to this thread |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Robert Lieblich
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
| Quote: | You still did not reply to my recommendation to how the ceiling price
could have been defined.
|
I was trying to do you a favor. You had no idea what you were talking
about. That's my reply.
[ ... ]
I'm going to do my absolute best to ignore you henceforth. Attempts
at dialogue are unproductive, and even insulting you is becoming dull.
--
Bob Lieblich
Let's see if I can do it |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob Cunningham
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 8:04 am
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Tue, 08 Nov 2005 18:56:57 -0500, Robert Lieblich
<robert.lieblich@verizon.net> said:
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
'[ ... ]
Some context supercedes
"Supersedes," dammit.
|
If this were the best of all possible prescriptivist worlds,
"supersede" would be right and "supercede" would be wrong.
But -- darnit -- dictionaries say that "supercede" is a
variant spelling of "supersede".
For example, _Merriam-Webster's Unabridged_ says
Main Entry:supercede
variant of Supersede
| Quote: | other context. What if there was
one little sentence in the bible that said: "God doesn't really exist."
How would that effect
"affect," dammit.
the context of everything else that the bible
says? Would it supercede
That's twice.
|
See above.
[...]
| Quote: | Have you ever seen those lists of paired cliches that contradict each
other, the likes of
"Absence makes the heart grow fonder -- out of sight, out of mind?"
|
He who hesitates is lost -- look before you leap.
Incidentally, since punctuation involving quotes and stops
is a frequent topic of discussion here, let it be noted that
Robert should have put his question mark outside the quotes
-- following either British or American conventions. I'm
sure he knows that, though, so let's call it a typo.
Actually, a case can be made for putting it inside in this
case, but then it can no longer be called a paired set of
clichés. Instead, it's an assertion of one aphorism
followed by a question as to whether "out of sight out of
mind" doesn't contradict it. The clichés no longer have
equal weight, so it seems wrong to call them a pair.
--
Bob Cunningham, Southern California, USofA
The early bird gets the worm.
The early worm shoulda stood in bed.
-- Woody Wordpecker |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ross Howard
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 4:26 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:21:59 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net>
wrought:
| Quote: |
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:43713B49.6C9997BB@verizon.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
'[ ... ]
Some context supercedes
"Supersedes," dammit.
WRONG! Both are valid.
|
What? That's ambiguous!
--
Ross Howard |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:4371764F.D70C3DB7@verizon.net...
| Quote: | Peter Olcott wrote:
[ ... ]
You still did not reply to my recommendation to how the ceiling price
could have been defined.
I was trying to do you a favor. You had no idea what you were talking
about. That's my reply.
[ ... ]
I'm going to do my absolute best to ignore you henceforth. Attempts
at dialogue are unproductive, and even insulting you is becoming dull.
--
Bob Lieblich
Let's see if I can do it
|
I was not wrong about your contract.
I have won enough of these cases out-of-court
over these same issues to know that I was right.
If you would have defined price the way that I
suggested you would not be having the problems
that you are having. I don't think that it is your
fault for not writing the contract that way. If the
common meaning of price were to apply, then the
contractor's meaning would be ruled out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Olcott
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 5:39 pm
Post subject: Re: The Literal Meaning of Words |
|
|
"Ross Howard" <gguiri@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:p5g3n1h7frgnrbutqlsru2kg7l2aib7m7s@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 8 Nov 2005 18:21:59 -0600, "Peter Olcott" <olcott@att.net
wrought:
"Robert Lieblich" <robert.lieblich@verizon.net> wrote in message news:43713B49.6C9997BB@verizon.net...
Peter Olcott wrote:
'[ ... ]
Some context supercedes
"Supersedes," dammit.
WRONG! Both are valid.
What? That's ambiguous!
--
Ross Howard
Two different spellings of the same word do not form ambiguity. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in