From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jan 06 11:53:03 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:53:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1Cmdgm-0007aw-GF for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 06 Jan 2005 11:52:56 -0800 Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 11:52:56 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: some thoughts about lojban use and future Message-ID: <20050106195256.GE24428@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20050106062133.GB19161@mit.edu> <001701c4f416$b89ef6e0$42e1fea9@oemcomputer> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <001701c4f416$b89ef6e0$42e1fea9@oemcomputer> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 9184 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thu, Jan 06, 2005 at 05:33:22PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > Rob: > > Here are the things we can't do outside of demos: > > 1. We can't translate between vastly different languages (like English and > > Korean) with any success at all. > > 2. We can't parse arbitrary sentences. > > 3. Even if we have parse trees, we can't turn them into accurate semantic > > representations. > > 4. Even if we have accurate semantic representations, we can't put them > > together and hold a natural discourse. > > > > I'm working on a project to use Lojban to get a foot in the door on 2, > > 3, and 4. The problem is convincing a professor that artificial language > > processing will help natural language processing, but it's not because > > the things I'm doing in Lojban have already been accomplished with > > natural languages. It's because it seems that we won't accomplish these > > things in natural languages for another 15 to 50 years, and most people > > have given up on them. > > For natlangs, 2 & 3 are the fault of linguistics -- it's really hard > for the linguist to work out the grammar of a language, but to the > extent that linguists succeed with 2 & 3, the computational problem > of 2 & 3 -- aside from disambiguation Errrm. That would be The Whole Problem, no? The vodka is good, but the meat is rotten. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/