Received: from mail-ob0-f189.google.com ([209.85.214.189]:49280) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SpkTR-0008Pb-E1; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:18 -0700 Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3sf4085350obb.16 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:11 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ZHPp1z/8SgD8VceQQSl16lo0CnfdClrdiOIQG+vZbUs=; b=sQrRYevxxCPZr0f8Dri57dRil259cBoGqRietk9BXG9PcwViWNez9+ahDEacTyF/qL C9eRg79x5dNDcaB2+P+99zhXWBrPLGTBGbyMKcy//4diBYLCsVsdVnUsXlhJotR30Klf AqVYOIFEqijvHSvrdnkI5xL9uM0jB5Ky/Iugk= Received: by 10.236.74.8 with SMTP id w8mr610709yhd.4.1342203609889; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.26.31 with SMTP id d31ls1006559anj.8.gmail; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.79.198 with SMTP id i46mr4336857yhe.4.1342203609154; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.79.198 with SMTP id i46mr4336854yhe.4.1342203609142; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-yx0-f178.google.com (mail-yx0-f178.google.com [209.85.213.178]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t29si2459092yha.0.2012.07.13.11.20.09 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.178; Received: by mail-yx0-f178.google.com with SMTP id l6so4630733yen.23 for ; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.50.94.133 with SMTP id dc5mr2303697igb.16.1342203607182; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Fri, 13 Jul 2012 11:20:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <90a7e54c-42fe-4ee0-9693-8155db9a7646@googlegroups.com> <4FFDC7C8.2010707@gmail.com> <237c4ac5-64f3-40fa-81d3-8a97c76dcc5d@googlegroups.com> <1342109844.79789.YahooMailNeo@web184407.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <4FFF180C.8060000@gmail.com> <4FFF534B.9010509@gmail.com> <5000314E.10906@gmail.com> Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2012 20:20:07 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] &Lang From: Escape Landsome To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: escaaape@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=escaaape@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / De Bruijn indices, --- or, at least, some kind of indices ---, are required in any semantic theory. This is because of the constraints due to syntax. Some syntactically equivalent phrases need to be labelled as refering to the same object, or to different objects. Consider the following utterance : "the black cat looks at the small cat" Some syntactico-semantic coding would be something like : lookat(black(cat),small(cat)).PRESENT or maybe lookat((cat.black.the),(cat.small.the)).PRESENT But then, this is not satisfactory since we must also encode somewhere that the two objects designed by the noun phrases are distinct (or are the same) So, =E0 la SOWA, you could code something like : lookat((cat.black.the)[1],(cat.small.the)[2]).PRESENT the [1] and [2] things being different. Sometimes, you will have the same indices, when the objects are the same. Yet, this is not so simple, because in "You are not you", which is a philosophical statement about you, one could argue that in some sense YOU are the same YOU, and in another sense, both YOU are different. Another problem lies in the mass noun, because a set { a, b, c } is different than a set { a, b, d }, so, will we say that {a, b, c} is a [1] and {a, b, d} a [2], or encode it otherwise ? If we opt for the former solution, the indices notations [1] and [2] show us clearly that {a, b, c} and {a, b, d} are not the same individuals, but they fail to encode the common elements a and b which pertain to both sets. Thus, a good semantic index ought to be some kind of semantic distance within some semantic space, but this is too complex to be encoded in a single word or a few ones. --esc --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.