From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 16 12:45:18 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:45:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E57Mz-0001fg-WF for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:45:10 -0700 Received: from [208.234.8.229] (helo=intelligenesiscorp.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E57Ms-0001fJ-Qy for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:45:09 -0700 Received: from zombiethustra (pcp06586041pcs.nrockv01.md.comcast.net [69.140.24.121]) by intelligenesiscorp.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with SMTP id j7GJiwJn015695 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:44:59 -0400 From: "Ben Goertzel" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:44:52 -0400 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <20050816191410.65441.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10390 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 > > I understand that in some other cases > > maintaining a > > familiar vocabulary with an unfamiliar grammar > > has proved > > difficult, but I have a strong feeling this > > won't be the > > case with Loglish -- based on (among other > > thigns) my > > recent preliminary experiments trying > > to speak a (flawed version of) Loglish with my > > wife... > > Which have been, of course, uncontrolled so that > you can choose to accept whatever you say as > being OK. Several experiments of this intuitive > sort with other modified Englishes have come a > cropper on this problem. Correct -- so the right experiment for me to do is to write a Loglish parser and experiment with it, seeing how difficult it is to get the hang of writing correct Loglish at the computer without repeated iterations... I don't consider Loglish to really be a "modified English", though I think it could be sold as such. It's really a "modified Lojban". > > Yes, I agree that WordNet and FrameNet are not > > the only possible > > resources to use in this role ... they're just > > the best-known > > and most fully-fleshed-out examples of > > resources of their kind... > > I worry about WordNet because it does not seem to > have a core vocabulary with which to define > everything else (the Platonist in me, I suppose; > but the full carrying through of all these > projects seems to requires some such basis). WordNet does have a systematic ontology for categorizing all the words/senses in it, but not a core vocabulary... > but I fear that in my old age > I have become more pragmatic and less idealistic > ;-p>> > > Gee, as I get nearer to 70 I find myself being > more optimistic about most things that do not > involve politics (which this issue does I > suppose) and giving up politics as hopeless > (given the small amount of money at my disposal). Well I'm not really old, I'm just 38 -- but I have woken up the fact that nearly everything definable or discussable in human terms involves politics ;-p -- and this sort of issue (adoption of languages by large numbers of human beings) certainly does... ben To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.