SUO: One Meaning To Rule Them All (Nee Question about CLCE)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
JS = John F. Sowa
RC = Rich Cooper
JS: Every knowledge representation language, every programming language,
and every artificial language for design, specification, or whatever
requires monosemy -- one and only one meaning for each word.
John, Rich, Etc.
The above statement is false.
I compliment you on finally
having captured the parent
of all falsehoods in the
nominal sense of meaning,
at least, as it affects
our current endeavor.
I think that this would be well worth our further inquiry --
at least in this fallow duration, while we wait for the
media to be unseized, the dissidents to be unjailed,
and the elections to be wilye-nilye dis-suspended.
JS: Since CLCE is designed to map to those languages,
there is no way that it can do soin a simple,
convenient way without requiring every word
to have a unique meaning.
This is the knee-jerk pre.txt of 1-lithic thinkers everywhere
for the ubiquitous imposition of their 1-clonal mensalities.
Or, can you tell us how you would draw a practical distinction,
a difference that makes a difference, betweem 1-semic semantics
and 1-lithic ontologies?
RC: While I like the basic idea of a controlled language,
requiring monosemy is too strict a constraint for most
people. I write from the familiarity of using a form
of CLCE called ROSIE back in the late eighties.
JS: If you want a word, such as "bank" to have more than one
word sense, you can do so by using distinct spellings, such
as "bank1" and "bank2". Or better, you can use hyphenated terms,
such as "river-bank" and "money-bank".
A solution worthy of Count Korzybski and S.I. Hayakawa themselves!
And as much as I admired the one and not the other in my so-called
youth, it is the road to 1-lithic rune like none we've seen before,
though, of course, we have all, well, not 'all' of us, taken these
brands of prescryption before.
Does anybody really think that the humane intellect works this way?
Really? No, really!? Then let them speak for themselves.
When they acquire the capacity to speak,
which I doubt is ever by these means.
So what might be the alternative?
The alternative is to e=volve intelligent interpreters.
You can do it.
Nature did it.
I think.
Jon
Incidental Musement:
http://thisisnotthat.com/gs/abs_mod.html
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o