From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 08 17:29:21 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:29:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DK3qb-0000pt-Jr
	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:29:13 -0700
Received: from web81303.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.78])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44)
	id 1DK3qZ-0000pS-Am
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:29:13 -0700
Message-ID: <20050409002840.46495.qmail@web81303.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.48.37] by web81303.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 17:28:40 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 17:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Semantics of lojban and glibau, and Lojban FrameNet revisited
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: 6667
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--)
X-archive-position: 9800
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 08, 2005 at 06:24:00PM -0400, Ben
> Goertzel wrote:
 
> [on systematizing lujvo]
> > Taking this kind of approach to defining
> argument structures would
> > seem to reduce the risk of odd
> inconsistencies occurring in the
> > dictionary of argument-structures... I'm
> curious why a systematic
> > approach like this wasn't taken in
> constructing the Lojban
> > dictionary, since Lojbanoidic folks seem so
> interested in order
> > and systematicity... it's odd that the
> argument-structures are
> > only imperfectly and informally systematized,
> no?
> 
> The reason is that sometimes the results of a
> formalized place
> structure suck ass.
> 
> :-)
> 
Indeed, something enough like this approach to
pass has been tried from time to time and always
gets overthrown because the results in particular
cases are wrong in one or more respects
(essentials left out, superfluous left in, wrong
order, and so on).  But something like this does
make a useful check, showing where "anomalies"
need a defense.