SUO: RE: Re: Language Issues
Jon,
. I don't dispute what you say for a moment.
. In my defence I say I was just exemplifying my position in
ordinary waffly old NL English, not trying to provide precise definitions.
That would take much more effort than the 40 seconds or I spent on the items
you are questioning.
Cheers Graham Horn
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
================================================
Phone: 02.6244.1094
Fax: 02.6244.1199
Email: Graham.Horn@aihw.gov.au <mailto:graham.horn@aihw.gov.au>
-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2000 6:15 PM
To: Horn, Graham
Cc: 'Dickert, John'; 'David Whitten'; standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: SUO: Re: Language Issues
Horn, Graham wrote:
>
> John,
> . Re avoiding the ambiguity problem,
> you may like to look at some others of my e-mails
> today and the preceding couple of days.
>
> . In a controlled subset of English
> there would be some way of avoiding the ambiguity
> problem. Here are a couple of possible systems:
> * each word may have one meaning allowed,
---------------------------------^^^^^^^
> which generates a need to develop a whole mass
> of new words to take over the disallowed meanings,
-------------------------------------------^^^^^^^^
> or else the need for at least phrases to describe
> their meanings;
--------^^^^^^^^
> * or possibly it may have at most one meaning
----------------------------------------------^^^^^^^
> in any defined context, which requires the need to
> indicate the context in some way, possibly by an
> adjective/adverb or separate sentence.
>
> . English actually has a large number
> of devices for managing such problems, and others
> of them may also be useful for a controlled subset
> suitable for the SUO.
>
> Cheers Graham Horn
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Graham,
I thought that I might help you along with your espoused aims
by indicating one of the more flagrantly ambiguous words that
I noticed in your statement of intent. That word "meaning",
merely as I understand it -- heaven only knows what meanings
that another person might add to the account -- has at least
the following two moieties of distinctive nuances of meaning:
1. The objects denoted by a sign or a concept:
variously called the "reference" or the "denotation",
an uncouth cousin to the "extension" of a concept.
Some call this the "semantics", others do not.
2. The ideas associated with a sign or a concept:
variously called the "sense" or the "connotation",
a kiffin' cousin to the "intension" of an object.
Some call this the "semiotics", others do not.
As you say, you may choose among "a large number of devices for
managing such problems", the easiest of which would most likely
be to select a pair of distinctive terms from Paragraph 1 and
Paragraph 2, above, barring the circumstance, of course, that
others of your acquaintance and otherwise will most un-likably
choose to use "your" words in their perversely otherwise ways,
and so you may just find it a far, far better thing you do to
form such prefixious neologisms as "o-meaning" and "i-meaning",
or meaning/schmeaning, or something of your own.
Good Luck With That,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤