Guy Gardoit's point might be important if it were 1. true 2. relevant
which serves to remove the foundation of the rest of this discourse. Now applying this sort of logic to the current vogue for the word "issue" when people of my generation would use the word "problem" would be more relevant. I appreciate that this would turn the discussion from a term with two meanings to two terms for the same meaning. Chris Mason On Thu, 30 Jul 2009 02:07:02 +0000, john gilmore <[email protected]> wrote: >Guy Gardoit's point is the important one: Acronyms and indeed words are often overloaded. >Is, for example, the denotation of an instance of the token 'pen' in a particular context that of >1) a writing instrument? >2) an animal enclosure or the like? >3) a truncation of >>penitentiary<< with semantic contamination from 2)? >4) a female swan? >etc., etc. (consult the OED)? >Semantic ambiguity is indeed a terrible problem for programs. AI has founderd on it. >For people, on the other hand, it is seldom a problem. We are extraordinarily good at using implicit contextual clues to resolve it. When, for example, was the last time you were unsure of the denotation of an instance of 'pen'? >Semantic ambiguities won't go away, and railing against them is a mug's game. >Historically, preoccupation with a particular, notionally illegitimate use of >a word or acronym has almost always reflected obsolescence. It has meant that a quondam legitimate use was being supplanted rapidly by the new, illegitimate one being deplored. >We bother to deplore only improprieties that we judge threatening. >John Gilmore Ashland, MA 01721-1817 USA ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
