From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 16 13:24:17 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:24:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E57yh-0002Pk-CB for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:24:07 -0700 Received: from web81302.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.77]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E57yf-0002Pc-20 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:24:07 -0700 Received: (qmail 6285 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Aug 2005 20:24:03 -0000 Message-ID: <20050816202403.6283.qmail@web81302.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.32.165] by web81302.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:24:03 PDT Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:24:03 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 10392 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 --- Ben Goertzel wrote:> > > 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". Which may be a distinction without a difference, Lojban (from formal logic) is so much a part, grammatically, of English that I am fairly sure transitivity hold. This one of the reason loglans are so usefless for Sapir-Whorf tests (at least for the hypothesis that Sapir and Whorf actually hinted at). > > > 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... Well, as a philosophy teacher, I can never see the word "ontology" without getting totally confused (this applies in philosophy as well as outside), so what does an ontology in this peculiar sense mean in terms of rigorous unique specifications of meaning, the sort that would have been given by a fixed basic vocabulary and some rules of combination? 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.