From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 16 15:23:20 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:23:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E59pw-0004cU-AX for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:23:12 -0700 Received: from [208.234.8.229] (helo=intelligenesiscorp.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E59pq-0004cA-MB for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 15:23:12 -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 j7GMN2BW007149 for ; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:23:03 -0400 From: "Ben Goertzel" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:22:56 -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: <20050816202403.6283.qmail@web81302.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10399 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 > > 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? In a WordNet context, "ontology" just means a hierarchical categorization system, that's all. WordNet is a hierarchy (a directed acyclic graph) of semantic-senses, with a set of words attached to each semantic sense. It doesn't try to derive all word meanings via combining a set of basic meanings. The most interesting attempt I know of in this direction is Anna Wierzbicka's work with the Natural Semantic Metalanguage (NSM), but it hasn't yielded any useful linguistic resources yet so far as I know. -- 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.