h a l f b a k e r yYou think: Aha! We go: ha, ha.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
We talk in meanings, not just in words.
English language, which sometimes has many homonyms, is quite poor in capability to denote, what particular meaning you intend your word to be understood.
An example. If I write a word 'game', meaning the animals hunted, I could perhaps write 'game4', meaning,
the 4th meaning of the word 'game'. It _would_ be so, if the only dictionary in the world was the Merriam-Webster's online dictionary, which indeed, lists it as fourth meaning of the noun. Other dictionaries list it as 9th, 11th or other meaning of the word.
Anyhow, let's say every dictionary lists the meaning as number 4, or we use a certain dictionary and put a note on each of our own texts, explaining what dictionary we use.
Having all words (actually, meanings) identified by numbers makes a text more precise and understandable, but the numbers obstruct reading.
The idea is to assign different colors to the homonyms (as opposed to assigning different numbers) in order to identify the meanings.
Merriam Webster's online dictionary
http://www.m-w.com/...=Dictionary&va=game
[Inyuki, Sep 26 2007]
Compact Oxford English Dictionary
http://www.askoxfor..._oed/game_1?view=uk
[Inyuki, Sep 26 2007]
Synaesthesia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synesthesia
[imaginality, Sep 26 2007]
[link]
|
| |
Um, no thanks. Ambiguity is a very important element of English prose, even more so in poetry. |
|
| |
[DrCurry], sure, sometimes ambiguity is important. The words that the writer wants to leave ambiguous, could write in black. |
|
| |
Naw, leave it alone. We like our garbled rough and tumble language. And if your language has anything to say about it, we might take it out back to the alley and shanghai a few loaner words out of it. Capice? |
|
| |
The right solution is for the context of the sentence to provide clues to the word's meaning. If it doesn't, it's poorly written. |
|
| |
Change the words so that every one has a single meaning. Problem solved. |
|
| |
[hippo], come on, if something can be written in two words, why should one have to write it in three words just to get a simple idea accross? |
|
| |
Inyuki: whether you're talking about technical or everyday English, there is almost always an unambiguous and brief way to word things. If the text is wordy and ambiguous, it is due either to the carelessness of the copy writer, or to deliberate ambiguiity or obfuscation on his/her part. No amount of coloring will get around any of those things. |
|
| |
I think it's time for some <green>blue-
</green>skies thinking about
language. But this proposal gives me
<purple>black</purple> thoughts; in
fact it makes me see <blue>red</
blue>. Only a <magenta>black</
magenta>guard would suggest
something like this. In any case, as
DrCurry points out, it is perfectly
possible to write clearly in
<yellow>black</yellow> and
<pink>white</pink>, which makes
your idea <cyan>red</cyan>undant. |
|
| |
I was pointing out that the names for
colours can also have ambiguous names,
and hence would themselves have to be
coloured. |
|
| |
I think it may be useful if not for fiction/poetry but in legal or technical documentation. |
|
| |
This could prove annoying for people with grapheme-colour synaesthesia, who already see letters as coloured. |
|
| |
[Normzone], did you mean yes? |
|
| |
wots rong with inglish (as he is spoke and ritten) |
|
| |
[zeno] Maybe yes, maybe no. |
|
| |