From Communication 101

Discuss any other topic in here.
Diskutu ĉiujn aliajn temojn ĉi tie.
janSilipu
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:21 am

From Communication 101

Postby janSilipu » Wed Jun 20, 2012 4:19 pm

mi sona e ni: sina pilin e ni: sina sona e toki ni: sina pilin e ni: mi toki e toki ni. taso mi selo ala e pilin ni: sina kama sona ala sona e ni. sina pilin e ni: mi toki e toki ni. taso mi wile ala toki e toki ni.

janMato
Posts: 1545
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2009 12:21 pm
Location: Takoma Park, MD
Contact:

Re: From Communication 101

Postby janMato » Wed Jun 20, 2012 7:23 pm

janSilipu wrote:mi sona e ni: sina pilin e ni: sina sona e toki ni: sina pilin e ni: mi toki e toki ni. taso mi selo ala e pilin ni: sina kama sona ala sona e ni. sina pilin e ni: mi toki e toki ni. taso mi wile ala toki e toki ni.


I know that you feel that you know this speech, you think that I say this speech. But I don't surface/surround this feeling, you maybe* don't know that you think that I say this speech. But I don't want to say this speech.

* Not sure how to gloss sona ala sona outside of a yes/no question.

I think the gist is "You think you understand me, but you don't"

janSilipu
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:21 am

Re: From Communication 101

Postby janSilipu » Wed Jun 20, 2012 10:13 pm

Original: I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what you think I said was not what I meant.

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: From Communication 101

Postby jan-ante » Thu Jun 21, 2012 9:10 am

janSilipu wrote: I know that you believe you understand what you think I said but I am not sure you realize that what you think I said was not what I meant.
this construction is excessive. e.g. one can just say "I know that you believe you understand what I said " removing "you think", and so on. after simplification one can transmitt its meaning as follows:
sina pilin e ni: sina kama jo e sona pi toki mi. mi sona e pilin sina ni. taso ken la sina kama jo e ijo wan. taso mi pilin ala e ijo ni li pilin e ijo ante. ni li insa lawa sina anu seme? mi sona ala.

janKipo
Posts: 2984
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: From Communication 101

Postby janKipo » Thu Jun 21, 2012 1:32 pm

Correction: "what you heard is not what I meant", which adds yet another nice twist.
This was meant to be an exercise in nominalized sentences: indirect quotes and indirect questions, but it turns out to have a lot more going on, apparently.
ante points out one interesting point (which does lie in the province of complex sentences, the solution to the official problem). One can indeed drop the "you think" from "believe you understand what you think I said", since the "what I said" is already in the scope of believe. It is still difficult to say that correctly in tp, however (more later). The rest of his rendition, like Mato's, gets to the gist but avoids the difficulties (or most of them).
The Logician wants to sort this out Lojbanically (as it were - Lb doesn't really do this all that well either, for all its elaborate mechanism). For the nonce, I'll set aside the differences between knowing and being sure that or realizing that (I didn't before and made a real mess, as you can see). And I will take it, for the moment that "what you heard" is the same as "what you think I said" . The the basic pattern is : I know that (you believe that [you understand message 1 and I said message 1]) but I don't know whether (you know that [message 1 != message 2 and I meant that {I say message 2}]), where something flags that "message 2" and "message 2" have reference in the "real world", not the contexts in which they are embedded, although I don't think it is necessary that you be aware of what message 2 is, other than that it is different from message 1. So the last bit should maybe be outside all the parentheseses. The point is that there is no way to render all this directly into natural tp and certainly not to do it on the fly. Nor is it likely that any such rendering will be immediately even as intelligible as the English original. On the other hand, some of the obvious dodges, such as ante uses only get us part way: 'toki mi' for "what I said" is fine, except that it shifts referents moving in and out of various contexts (or seems to; tp semantics is not even a gleam in anyone's eye yet).
I egerly await further discussion, since I seem to have gotten myself into a box here.

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: From Communication 101

Postby jan-ante » Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:18 am

janKipo wrote:Correction: "what you heard is not what I meant", which adds yet another nice twist.

sina kute e ijo wan taso mi wile toki e ijo ante
also could be mi toki e ijo wan. taso mi wile toki e ijo ante unless this second guy has a hallucinations

I know that (you believe that [you understand message 1 and I said message 1]) but I don't know whether (you know that [message 1 != message 2 and I meant that {I say message 2}]),
sina pilin e ni: sina kama jo e sona pi toki mi pi ijo wan. mi sona e ni. taso mi wile toki e ijo tu. ona en ijo wan li ante. ni li sona ala sona tawa sina? normally logic does not consider the question sentences, but we may use them (i ask => "I don't know whether..").

The point is that there is no way to render all this directly into natural tp and certainly not to do it on the fly. Nor is it likely that any such rendering will be immediately even as intelligible as the English original.
the only reason is the (ab)use of english as a gold standard. why it should be? your era is over. zhonghua renmin gunheguo wansui

On the other hand, some of the obvious dodges,
i am not sure what is dodge, but to my knowledge it is a brand of car (not my choise).

I egerly await further discussion, since I seem to have gotten myself into a box here.
then please mind that (to me) toki pona is a naive attempt of constructivism, so you logical experiments are poorly translatable to tp unless they are constructive

janKipo
Posts: 2984
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: From Communication 101

Postby janKipo » Fri Jun 22, 2012 11:01 am

Well, I am not sure how this would play out in Chinese either, but I suspect it has more tools that tp for handling theses sorts of problems (or can get them in 10,000 years).
Dodge cars (I am not sure whether they make anything but trucks now) were never my choice either, but here the issue is unrelated (except for a bunch of old jokes) in that a dodge is a way of avoiding (rather than confronting) a problem. In this case, the shift has been to take everything out of the perceptual (what you hear , believe, etc.) and move it to the external. This is legitimate to a certain extent, but it gives the game away to early for my sense of the original. Of course, there is also the undealt with issue of whether 'toki' refers to the sentence uttered or the intended meaning of that sentence, which lies behind a lot of this English sentence. I think it mainly makes sense in terms of being about meanings, but there are some places where that is not clear. English is not the gold standard here, merely the given.
'ni li sona ala sona tawa sina?' "Does this know/mean for/to you?" Maybe 'sina sona ala sona e ni?' "Do you know this?" Some "logics" (Montague linguistics and its descendents) have no problems with questions and are happy to treat indirect questions as embedded questions in an NP=S slot (to use a different terminology). Note: "realize" is ultimately different from "know" as it is an achievement, not a state, so at least 'kama sona' and probably 'pini pi kama sona'.
Someday, you have to explain constructivism to me; I can't yet get beyond tertium non datur and the resulting mathematics -- which is clearly irrelevant here.

jan-ante
Posts: 541
Joined: Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:05 pm

Re: From Communication 101

Postby jan-ante » Mon Jun 25, 2012 10:02 am

janKipo wrote:Well, I am not sure how this would play out in Chinese either, but I suspect it has more tools that tp for handling theses sorts of problems (or can get them in 10,000 years).
just note that the "these sort of problems" is a direct consequence of english (chinese) as a primary language for you (future generation of internet users)

Dodge cars (I am not sure whether they make anything but trucks now) were never my choice either, but here the issue is unrelated (except for a bunch of old jokes) in that a dodge is a way of avoiding (rather than confronting) a problem. In this case, the shift has been to take everything out of the perceptual (what you hear , believe, etc.) and move it to the external. This is legitimate to a certain extent, but it gives the game away to early for my sense of the original.
then just formulate clearly the rules of the game you want me to play. and note that, if i can persistently avoid the problem, then it is probably not a problem

'ni li sona ala sona tawa sina?' "Does this know/mean for/to you?" Maybe 'sina sona ala sona e ni?' "Do you know this?"
sona - knowledge (is it a knowledge for you?) and understand(ing) (is it understandable for you?). one may say sina sona ala sona e ni, but it is better to avoid repetitive constructions (it was repetitive in its context) for better understanding. it is a way of avoiding a problem

Some "logics" (Montague linguistics and its descendents) have no problems with questions and are happy to treat indirect questions as embedded questions in an NP=S slot (to use a different terminology).
but i mean something different. note that if one asks a question "is it A?", then he implies "◊A". the passage "is it A? may be no" implies ◊!□A, etc.

Note: "realize" is ultimately different from "know" as it is an achievement, not a state, so at least 'kama sona' and probably 'pini pi kama sona'.
yes but is toki pona intended to distinguish this subtle difference? (the question implies that it may be not the case)

Someday, you have to explain constructivism to me; I can't yet get beyond tertium non datur and the resulting mathematics -- which is clearly irrelevant here.
for the begining just read here about BHK-interpretations http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathe ... ructive/#2
it is similar with Sonja's concept of "honesty" - provide a construction for "pre-emptive war" and see that it amounts to as little as "invasion of a foreign country". the construction for necessity is a willing of someone. it is naive as it lefts ken, lon, ala, which open a backdoor for non-constructive sayings, and i tried to consider a way to correct this in some another topic.

janKipo
Posts: 2984
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2009 2:20 pm

Re: From Communication 101

Postby janKipo » Mon Jun 25, 2012 3:41 pm

jan-ante wrote:
janKipo wrote:Well, I am not sure how this would play out in Chinese either, but I suspect it has more tools that tp for handling theses sorts of problems (or can get them in 10,000 years).
just note that the "these sort of problems" is a direct consequence of english (chinese) as a primary language for you (future generation of internet users)
Any language will present some problems in this area for tp, since tp is very limited here I think it can cover the case eventually without any additions, but the results will be unnatural looking and difficult to read. Generally, such efforts are not needed, but I hope they can be carried out when they are needed (though I am not sure for what purpose, other than exercises like this).

Dodge cars (I am not sure whether they make anything but trucks now) were never my choice either, but here the issue is unrelated (except for a bunch of old jokes) in that a dodge is a way of avoiding (rather than confronting) a problem. In this case, the shift has been to take everything out of the perceptual (what you hear , believe, etc.) and move it to the external. This is legitimate to a certain extent, but it gives the game away to early for my sense of the original.
then just formulate clearly the rules of the game you want me to play. and note that, if i can persistently avoid the problem, then it is probably not a problem
Well, here the problem is to keep the distinction between the perceived and the occurrent world, where the distinction makes a difference. The conflict is between two perceived worlds: what I think I am saying and what you think I said. The occurrent mediator is the actual utterance (or, possibly, two -- or more -- actual utterances: what left my mouth and what reached your ears). Assuming a clean channel, that is, that the your ear gets what my mouth sent, undistorted, we have only personal interpretations to deal with (although there are further complexities in "I know that", "you believe that" and "you realize that").

'ni li sona ala sona tawa sina?' "Does this know/mean for/to you?" Maybe 'sina sona ala sona e ni?' "Do you know this?"
sona - knowledge (is it a knowledge for you?) and understand(ing) (is it understandable for you?). one may say sina sona ala sona e ni, but it is better to avoid repetitive constructions (it was repetitive in its context) for better understanding. it is a way of avoiding a problem

Some "logics" (Montague linguistics and its descendents) have no problems with questions and are happy to treat indirect questions as embedded questions in an NP=S slot (to use a different terminology).
but i mean something different. note that if one asks a question "is it A?", then he implies "◊A". the passage "is it A? may be no" implies ◊!□A, etc.
His saying implicates that he believes A is possible, true, but also that it is not necessary in this context. I forget what this is relevant to: "Do your realize that A?' but he has already said that he is not sure about this, so this implications doesn't add much. Or, more interestingly, is that message 1 is not message 2 that is not determined, only possible but not necessary? Or, more to the point, maybe not even true? His unsureness may be a consequence of his being unsure about whether what the other understands is really different from what he understands. Wheels within wheels!

Note: "realize" is ultimately different from "know" as it is an achievement, not a state, so at least 'kama sona' and probably 'pini pi kama sona'.
yes but is toki pona intended to distinguish this subtle difference? (the question implies that it may be not the case)
I am sure it is not intended to make that distinction, but can it? Can it, to go to the simplest case, distinguish readily (or at all) between stopping and finishing, between moving toward and moving to, and so on? I hope so.

Someday, you have to explain constructivism to me; I can't yet get beyond tertium non datur and the resulting mathematics -- which is clearly irrelevant here.
for the beginning just read here about BHK-interpretations http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathe ... ructive/#2
it is similar with Sonja's concept of "honesty" - provide a construction for "pre-emptive war" and see that it amounts to as little as "invasion of a foreign country". the construction for necessity is a willing of someone. it is naive as it lefts ken, lon, ala, which open a backdoor for non-constructive sayings, and i tried to consider a way to correct this in some another topic.
I'm still not quite sure what all this has to do with constructivism in mathematics. But if you mean that tp should strive for more neutral, factual, untainted descriptions, then, aside from a lingering doubt about their possibility, I agree with you. [note vis a vis constructivism that such descriptions are no more constructive than any other, they mainly just don't grate on outr prejudices so hard.] But that has little that I can see to do with the issue here of the various intensional layers of discourse and of sorting them out.


Return to “ijo ante | miscellaneous | diversaj”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest