Re: Ambiguity and disunification

From: Gregg Reynolds (
Date: Wed Mar 02 2005 - 20:58:51 CST

  • Next message: Jony Rosenne: "RE: Ambiguity and disunification"

    Dean Snyder wrote:
    > Wrong - if you encode only one of the disambiguated usages you have
    > actually INCREASED the ambiguity of the original character; it now has
    > not only its original ambiguous significance but ALSO a new context-bound
    > unambiguous significance opposite the newly encoded character's
    > significance. In addition, there is no way to represent all three usages
    > (one ambiguous, two unambiguous) in the same plain text passage.

    You lost me there. If I have <hyphen/minus> and <hyphen>, for example,
    there's nothing ambiguous about the fact that the former is ambiguous
    (bi-semous?) and the latter not. How does adding <hyphen> to the
    repertoire change the meaning of <hyphen/minus>? Have I misunderstood

    > So you end up precisely with Jony's scenario - if you cut and exchange a
    > segment of some of this newly encoded and conformant text that happens to
    > have only examples of the original character in it, you now have no
    > context with which to decide how this character is to be interpreted
    > downstream; because the SOLE disambiguation trigger in plain text is the
    > PRESENCE of at least one of the newly encoded disambiguated characters.

    Lost me again. Be patient. Are you saying that the presence of e.g.
    <hyphen> in a string of text somehow affects the meaning of
    <hyphen/minus>? Feel free to explain offline if you think others will
    be annoyed by this. ;)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Mar 02 2005 - 20:58:49 CST