From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Sat Aug 27 12:15:51 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:15:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E969W-0006ho-QZ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:15:42 -0700 Received: from [208.234.8.229] (helo=intelligenesiscorp.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E969T-0006hf-1O for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:15:42 -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 j7RJFX9o031824 for ; Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:15:35 -0400 From: "Ben Goertzel" To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish Date: Sat, 27 Aug 2005 15:15:35 -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: <20050827162957.12839.qmail@web81306.mail.yahoo.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 Importance: Normal X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 10461 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 > > Regarding your point about whose argument the > > fi'o specifies -- I believe > > this is unproblematic, > > becaues the fi'o clearly tells whose argument > > "lo pliers" fits into, and "lo > > pliers" is clearly > > fitting into *some* argument of "murder." To > > have "lo pliers" fit into some > > argument of "chicken" > > one would have to use "be" or some other > > similar mechanism, I believe. > > Quite right. But that means that, from the point > of the parser, the FrameNet bits are unnecessary > and that discussion is irrelevant at that point. > At some point in interpretation (and, yes, I > think the two are --or ought to be -- separate as > much as possible, which is 100%) we learn that a > weapon is an instrument or means, but that only > because we already know that it is a peripheral > argument of "murder." Yes, the FrameNet lookup process is not necessary for syntax parsing, but is necessary for semantic processing. In some cases, though, if there is some uncertainty in which sense should be assigned to a word, the correct choice of sense might depend on how much sense the likeliest FrameNet-based argument assignments make for each word. However, this is also a matter of semantics, not syntax. In general, Loglish is essentially *syntactically* identical to Lojban; the difference is almost entirely semantic, except for the very simple syntax of the new Loglish cmavo (qui and quu). The Loglish syntax for fi'o is the same as the Lojban syntax for fi'o, even though the semantics is arguably a little different. -- Ben -- 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.