"Logan Shaw" <lshaw-usenet@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:472a784e$0$28891$4c368faf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Richard Harter wrote:
>> On 1 Nov 2007 14:50:16 GMT, ram@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Stefan Ram)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> cri@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Richard Harter) writes:
>>>> the code. In natural languages a symbol (word) has the same
>>>> definition(s) everywhere. This is one reason why natural
>>> In English, the meaning of a name (like »James«) depends
>>> on the context, too.
>>>
>>> Even terms have different meanings, for example, an
>>> »object« in Java (JLS3) is different from an »object«
>>> in C++ (ISO/IEC 14882:2003(E)).
>>>
>>> Many other words do not have any clear meaning at all,
>>> but are still used widely.
>
>> Did you see the "(s)" after the word "definition"?
>
> Sure. If you want to stick the subset of natural language
> where people only use words as defined in the dictionary, that
> works. But in the real world, people can and do give new
> definitions to words based on context. This is in fact, how
> the definitions got into the dictionary in the first place:
> words are constantly being formed and being evolved and being
> given new meanings in certain contexts, and when the context
> becomes large and a few other things happen, it is sometimes
> accepted and canonized into the official dictionary or accepted
> and canonized into the popular (global) lexicon.
>
yes. for example, note James 3, still need works yo...
> For example, take the word "chip". It was at first just a
> piece of something, like a wood chip. Then someone invented
> potato chips and eventually the word "chip" became short for
> that. Then integrated circuits and someone called them "chip"
> and that definition got adopted too. You can bet that only
> a small number of people used "chip" to mean integrated circuit
> at first, and only in a certain context. (Probably a cor****ate
> context; I don't know the exact history.) During that time,
> "chip" meant "potato chip" or the original "chip" (as in wood
> chip) meaning outside that context, and it meant IC within that
> context. Eventually, the IC meaning got accepted into the
> industry scope, and now it's in the formal dictionary scope
> as its own sense of the word "chip".
>
and, if you ask chip, no one is disabled so long as they have courage...
> In reality, natural language is a bit more complicated because
> there are overlapping contexts and pragmatic concerns are used
> to disambiguate things. But the point is there are definitely
> local lexicons. That's why we have the jargon file, after all.
>
and, in psuedo-reality, jargon is used as verbal expressions, "how was
day?
it was alphanumeric...".
oddly enough, humans can easily enough adapt to such oddity in terms of
language use (absent tra****ng their heads in the process...).
after all, humans were not built with simple brains...
is one a program, or are they a user?...
....
> - Logan
|
