From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Apr 08 19:29:58 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:29:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.44) id 1DK5jK-0002tc-Gr for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:29:50 -0700 Received: from n20a.bulk.scd.yahoo.com ([66.94.237.49]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.44) id 1DK5jI-0002t1-7H for lojban-in@lojban.org; Fri, 08 Apr 2005 19:29:50 -0700 DomainKey-Signature: Received: from [66.218.69.2] by n20.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Apr 2005 02:29:13 -0000 Received: from [66.218.66.27] by mailer2.bulk.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 Apr 2005 02:29:13 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-email X-Sender: ben@goertzel.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 48209 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2005 02:29:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m21.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2005 02:29:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO intelligenesiscorp.com) (208.234.8.229) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 02:29:11 -0000 Received: from zombiethustra (pcp06586041pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [69.140.24.121]) by intelligenesiscorp.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id j392Sph1032553; Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:28:54 -0400 To: , Message-ID: X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20050408232435.GR26545@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-Originating-IP: 208.234.8.229 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0 From: "Ben Goertzel" X-Yahoo-Profile: bgoertzel MIME-Version: 1.0 Mailing-List: list lojban@yahoogroups.com; contact lojban-owner@yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list lojban@yahoogroups.com Precedence: bulk Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2005 22:29:08 -0400 Subject: [lojban] Re: Semantics of lojban and glibau, and Lojban FrameNet revisited Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_026C_01C53C8A.6123B290" X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 9803 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: ben@goertzel.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ------=_NextPart_000_026C_01C53C8A.6123B290 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I agree that sometimes the results of a formalized place structure would suck ass... [p.s. I was tempted to check your Sex Code listed on your website to see if you think "sucking ass" is a good or a bad thing ;-D ;-p] But the question is, what percentage of the time would it be good? If it's good 90% of the time, then it's worth systematizing things and explicitly listing exceptions If it's good 60% of the time, then the systematization isn't worthwhile... My suspicion is that it would be good 80-90% of the time, but I'm far from certain... I guess your intuition is different? You'd know better than me I suppose... -- Ben G -----[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. :-) -Robin ------=_NextPart_000_026C_01C53C8A.6123B290 Content-Type: text/html; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
I agree that sometimes the results of a formalized place structure would suck ass...
 
[p.s. I was tempted to check your Sex Code listed on your website to see if you think "sucking ass" is a good or a bad thing ;-D ;-p]
 
But the question is, what percentage of the time would it be good?
 
If it's good 90% of the time, then it's worth systematizing things and explicitly listing exceptions
 
If it's good 60% of the time, then the systematization isn't worthwhile...
 
My suspicion is that it would be good 80-90% of the time, but I'm far from certain...
 
I guess your intuition is different?  You'd know better than me I suppose...
 
-- Ben G
 
 
-----[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.

:-)

-Robin


To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com


Yahoo! Groups Links
------=_NextPart_000_026C_01C53C8A.6123B290--