Re: Specific meanings of words

[And Rosta <cbmvax!uunet!cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu!ucleaar>]

Jimc wrote:
> There has been recently a conversation between And Rosta and Lojbab in
> which And (and others?) asks for the gismu definitions to be made more
> specific and Lojbab says that such specificity is impossible, because
> first the meanings of the words are dynamically negotiated between the
> users; second the meanings depend greatly on context, as in the hammer
> example; and third because even without these problems gismu X would
> have to be defined in terms of gismu Y which, inevitably, would be
> defined circularly in terms of X.
>  [...]
> It is probably hopeless to prepare text definitions of the gismu that
> avoid circular usages.  However, think of the referent set of a
> predicate: a list of sets of thus-related objects.  For example, the
> referent set of the predicate "eat" includes:
>         betsy (an elephant) eats peanut #325
>         betsy eats straw #116432
>         willie (a monkey) eats peanut #326
>         willie eats stolen sno-cone #58
> The doctrine is that the definition of "eat" is no more and no less than
> this referent set (set of records).
>  [...]
> By considering referent sets as definitions, we can accomplish several
> goals:
>     1.  Each user has a specific definition for the word.
>     2.  Dynamic negotiation and individual differences are recognized.
>     3.  Context is recognized explicitly.
>     4.  No circular definitions; no incomprehensible text definitions.
>
> Needless to say, the text definitions are still needed as training aids,
> so they should be as clear as feasible.

Jim is probably arguing a more doctrinal point than I was, so I
won't dispute it.

It wasn't clear to me how Jim's system allows degrees of membership
of referent sets; obviously (to prototypists) there are clear typical
instances of eating, but other instances (e.g. with soup) it's
less clear - eating soup is a more marginal instance of eating.

On circularity. I was proposing English language 'definitions' in
the sense of accurate indications of the meaning of gismu. I didn't
mean to suggest gismu meaning should officially be defined in
terms of correspondences with English words ("_mlatu_ means the same thing
as _cat_")!

On context-dependency of meaning. I wouldn't dream of suggesting
otherwise. I wasn't asking for rigid  definitions.

I'll illustrate my point using _botpi_, which is glossed 'bottle'.
Here is its English sense (roughly):
* made of glass
* form: cylindrical, with neck at one end sealed by cork or cap; no handle
* function: container; used for storage rather than preparation or serving

Is this the Lojban sense also? Or is it just, say, "sealable container
for liquid"?

---
And