From wetblu!uunet!PICA.ARMY.MIL!protin Wed May 23 22:40:52 1990 Return-Path: Received: by marob.masa.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.18.1 #18.7) id ; Wed, 23 May 90 22:40 EDT Received: by wetblu.hollander.com (/\=-/\ Smail3.1.16.1 #16.12) id ; Wed, 23 May 90 21:39 EDT Received: from cbmvax.UUCP by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with UUCP id AA11760; Wed, 23 May 90 09:18:54 -0400 Received: by cbmvax.cbm.commodore.com (5.57/UUCP-Project/Commodore Jan 13 1990) id AA20588; Wed, 23 May 90 09:03:37 EDT Received: by snark.uu.net (smail2.3) id AA29958; 23 May 90 08:08:24 EDT (Wed) Received: from [129.139.68.9] by uunet.uu.net (5.61/1.14) with SMTP id AA19548; Tue, 22 May 90 05:20:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 16 May 90 14:39:56 EDT From: "Arthur W. Protin Jr." (GC-ACCURATE) To: snark.uu.NET!lojban-list Subject: Re: Some things about lojban Message-Id: <9005161439.aa02660@COR4.PICA.ARMY.MIL> Status: RO Hello folks, I just read the comments by Yary Richard Phillip Hluchan and I want to add to it. I have not read much of anything on the new grammar, but my comments are based on content of that letter, my knowledge of computer science, and common sense. I have heard from many sources that "most people have a short-term memory of about seven items," which seems to fit my observations. But it was pointed out to me that various context maintenance and background processing chew up some of the seven, and it is best for understanding if a paper is limited to only three ideas in discussion at any point. If the three discussion ideas are independent of the parsing of the English, then there are only four left and using them all for routine parsing would be cutting it close. If prefix notation will free up the variables through chunking (or any other ploy), then that has to be superior. On the subject of machine use of the language, I have two points. First, computers are there to serve people, to off load us of work. We now write programs in higher level languages, not because it is any easier for the computer to understand, but inspite of the extra work the computer has to do, because it is more productive for us. Machines are getting faster and more powerful, and have been for longer than Loglan has been around. The only time it makes sense to bias the decisions for the computer's ease is when the savings is in orders of magnitude. A 40% reduction in effort for computer manipulation translates into only a year or less earlier delivery. A thousand fold (1000x) difference causes about a 21 year delay which is slightly longer than I want to wait, but 7 years for a ten fold difference can be acceptable. The second point on machine use of Lojban is simply: I want Lojban for use by humans!!! I don't want anything to jeopardize that! (If researchers think that they can make computers understand English, with all its nonsense, why should we have to cut corners to have them understand Lojban.) On a side note (a very side note): I read the photocopy of the newpaper article about the Lojban-only dinner party and want to comment on some translations. Of course there was a problem with translating "hamburger", because it is really "Hamburger". For hints about its translation look to the "Frankfurter", the "Manhattan" and the cheese "Danish". The popular American fast food entree is a sandwich in the style of Hamburg as presented at the Hamburg Worlds Fair. For a descriptive translation: it is a patty in a bun; where a patty is an individual portion sized meatloaf, and a bun is a variety of roll which is an individual portion sized bread loaf. The meatloaf is made from shaping a serving of mediumly ground/chopped meat, usually beef or beef plus others but also reasonably venison, lamb, or even turkey. The patty/meatloaf may also contain: egg; breadcrumbs; chopped onion, garlic, and/or pepper; and spices. (I think at this point that the analysis is more than detailed enough to come up with a better translation, and I there will suspend it, unless, of course, someone out there wants more of this abuse.) From phri!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!praxis!jagversm Thu May 24 11:29:38 EDT 1990 Article 4102 of sci.lang: Path: marob!phri!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!snorkelwacker!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!hp4nl!ruuinf!praxis!jagversm >From: jagversm@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Koen Versmissen) Newsgroups: sci.lang Subject: possible readings of "John seeks a bike or a fish" Keywords: natural language, quantification, intensionality Message-ID: <3320@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> Date: 22 May 90 12:29:36 GMT Sender: news@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl Lines: 40 Status: RO What are the possible readings of the sentence >John seeks a bike or a fish< in natural language? Technically there are, I think, eight readings: "to seek" being an intensional verb, both "bike" and "fish" can be either intensional or extensional. Furthermore, the disjunction can apply to either the speaker or John. Let me paraphrase: 1. There are a bike and a fish, and John is trying to find one of these (he doesn't care which one). 2. There are a bike and a fish, and John is trying to find one of these (but I don't know which of the two he's actually looking for). 3. There is a bike, and John is trying to find either this bike or a (possibly non-existent) fish (he doesn't care...) 4. There is a bike, and John is trying to find either this bike or some fish (but I don't know...). 5. & 6. Similar to 3. & 4., but with the roles of "bike" and "fish" interchanged. 7. John is looking for a (possibly non-existent) bike or a (possibly non-existent) fish, and will be satisfied when he has found either one. 8. John is looking for a bike or a fish, both possibly non- existent, but I don't know which one he's looking for. I hope this is clear. This came up during a talk on quantification in natural language. A theory thereof should account exactly for those readings acceptable in natural language. But which ones are in fact acceptable? Koen. From phri!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!lee Thu May 24 11:30:21 EDT 1990 Article 4105 of sci.lang: Path: marob!phri!sci.ccny.cuny.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!munnari.oz.au!uhccux!lee >From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) Newsgroups: sci.lang Subject: Re: possible readings of "John seeks a bike or a fish" Message-ID: <7809@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Date: 22 May 90 19:01:19 GMT References: <3320@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl> Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 62 Status: RO >From article <3320@ruuinf.cs.ruu.nl>, by jagversm@praxis.cs.ruu.nl (Koen Versmissen): >What are the possible readings of the sentence >>John seeks a bike or a fish< in natural language? > >Technically there are, I think, eight readings: ... As to what senses are actually possible in English, I couldn't say. I recall that Montague argued in "A Proper Theory of Quantification in English" that `seek' is not the same as `try to find', but I can't remember how that went. Approaching the matter transformationally, one would make somewhat different predictions from yours. I think some of your senses would violate movement constraints. Here are the possible forms I've come up with so far, using conjunction-reduction or a kind of pseudo-combinatory notation: (a)= 2 a bike John-tries John-finds or a fish John-tries John-finds (b)= 7 John-tries( (a bike John-finds) or (a fish John-finds) ) (c)= 8 John-tries(a bike John-finds) or John-tries(a fish John-finds) (d) John-tries(a bike John-finds) or a fish John-tries John-finds (e) a bike John-tries John-finds or John-tries(a fish John-finds) (f) John-tries(a (bike or fish) John-finds) (g) a (bike or fish) John-tries John-finds Only the first 3 correspond to senses you enumerated. The others are: (d) John is trying to find a possibly non-existent bike, or there is a fish that John is trying to find. (e) There is a bike that John is trying to find, or John is trying to find a possibly non-existent fish. (f) John is trying to find a possibly non-existent thing which, to him is either a bike or a fish, he's not sure. (g) There is a bike or a fish, I'm not sure which it is, that John is trying to find. There follows a key to the reductions from more standard logical forms to the above, and a couple of sample reductions: John-finds(x), bike(x), fish(x) John-tries(f(x)) -> (John-tries(f))(x) (Ex)f(x) -> some f some(f and g) -> a (f g) f(x) & g(x) -> (f and g)(x) f(x) v g(x) -> (f or g)(x) "There is a bike John finds or there is a fish John finds." (Ex)(bike(x) & John-finds(x)) v (Ey)(fish(y) & John-finds(y)) -> (Ex)(bike and John-finds)(x) v (Ey)(fish and John-finds)(y) -> (some and bike John-finds) v (some and fish John-finds) -> (a bike John-finds) v (a fish John-finds) -> (a bike John-finds) or (a fish John-finds) "There is either a bike or fish that John finds." (Ex)((bike(x) v fish(x)) & John-finds(x)) -> (Ex)((bike or fish)(x) & John-finds(x)) -> (Ex)((bike or fish) and John-finds)(x)) -> some ((bike or fish) and John-finds) -> a (bike or fish) John-finds Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu