On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 10:56 PM, Ian Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >> that does not match my understanding of how language use works > > What hope is there of dialog with someone if you don't agree on basic terms? > That's my understanding of how language use works. Or doesn't.
Certainly. Perhaps related: a founding principle of internet development was: "Rough agreement, and working code". That said: Generally speaking, word meanings have roots in common experiences. Generally speaking, commonly used words wind up having multiple definitions, and fitting the appropriate meanings to the context is what we do in conversations. (But note that humor, for example, seems to be based on rejecting the available meanings.) Anyways, the Oxford approach is great, when it works. And computer use and vernacular has been around long enough that their approach seems to be working for computer terms. > Yet here I am, setting out (…yet again) to talk to non-J initiates about J > – and I want to use words which I know they'll understand, like: variable, > constant, function – and I want to avoid words like noun, verb, pronoun, > proverb – because that's all J mystery jargon. That's going to depend on their background. A variable in algebra, for example will probably be different from a variable in programming language X (with some notable attempts at closing the gaps), which in turn will often be different from a variable in programming language Y. A crucial issue will tend to be the character of the varying that the variable is involved in. The same thing goes for "function". An algebraic function or a function in relational theory (or, as wikipedia currently labels it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relations ) is going to have a different definition from an sql function. For example. And, so on... When talking about "variables", concepts like "domain" and "range" (on the theory of relations side) or "type" and "dependencies" (on the coding side) can also often matter. (And, note also: just as we have thousands of different programming language and the ability to create new languages with relatively little effort, math also has many realms of terminology and specialization.) In educational contexts, a tactic used to keep this kind of variation under control is class prerequisites. Another tactic, of course, has been syllabus handouts and vocabulary study. Fortunately, it all becomes simple, after you understand it. > Don't I need a touchstone of definitions my reader and I will agree on? Yes, but this introduces a dependency on you having a relevant understanding of your readers' background. Failing that, working through examples tends to help. (And, of course, other issues will be pacing things and your readers' realms of interest. In fact, your reader's interests are going to tend to be crucial...) > To-date I've come up with these candidates: > (a) The Oxford Dictionary (…nowadays better than I expected it to be, > going by past experience) Yep - these people have a pretty good understanding of how language works. Not so great for doing useful things with it - that's not their job - but good for finding how other people have been using it. > (b) The following site: http://techterms.com > …which is cool. Just what I was looking for. But lacks the authority of an > ISO standard. It might be best to think of this as a supplement rather than a primary source. Best to avoid for fundamental concepts. (No definition of "number" for example.) Thanks, -- Raul ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
