Cc: "Ari Heljakka" <heljakka@iki.fi>,
        "Izabela Lyon Freire Goertzel" <izabela@goertzel.org>
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:40:16 -0400
Message-ID: <JNEIJCJJHIEAILJBFHILAEOMFFAA.ben@goertzel.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
In-Reply-To: <20050816150632.25334.qmail@web81305.mail.yahoo.com>
Importance: Normal
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
From: "Ben Goertzel" <lojban-out@lojban.org>
Reply-To: ben@goertzel.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal
Content-Length: 6390
Lines: 176


> Thgough not, I think, as much less as the numbers
> suggest.  Notice, also, that all this is largely
> predicated on continuing to learn Lojbna in the
> worse known way: as isolated pieces of vocabulary
> and syntax.  Hopefully, someone will soon (after
> a mere 50 years) get around to an immersion
> teaching system for Lojban (steal and modify any
> of the dozens already out there for Uzbeki and
> Tlon) and reduce the learning cost to the point
> where it will largely (though never completely)
> overcome this objection.  In theory, Lojban ought
> to be completely learnable in a day and total
> facility in a werek. 

This last sentence seems completely unrealistic to me...

I am a pretty intelligent person, but I don't have
a photographic memory, and I'm sure there's no way
I could achieve a full working understanding of Lojban
(including all that vocabulary) in a week...

I'd say that 2-3 months would be more realistic for
learning Lojban in a total immersion environment --
which as you point out does not exist.  By "learning"
I include learning enough lujvo to hold an actual
interesting conversation at something approaching, say,
half of English conversational speed...

I'd say that 2-3 weeks for learning *Loglish* might be
possible, for individuals very familiar with both English
and predicate logic.

> but
> learning restrictions is often harder than
> learning new words altogether (a similar remark
> applies to grammar, so Loglish may have more
> problems ther as well).

Again, we disagree on this point, and the only
way I know to resolve the disagreement is
empirical...

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...

> I would think that the ultimate aim was to get
> away from English altogether.

OK, this is a fine *ultimate* aim, but in order to achieve it,
one may need to adopt other aims for the short and medium
term

I want my AI systems to be able to read world literature,
science, and so forth -- and the only way all that stuff
is going to translated into Lojban, IMO, is if an AI does
it...

I do think Lojban is superior to English (and to Loglish,
in principle, once Lojban's vocabulary is more fully built
out), but that doesn't mean I think Lojban is going to 
obsolete English anytime soon....  

OTOH, I do think that Lojban or Loglish could obsolete 
English in the short/medium term for the particular task 
of communicating with 
semi-intelligent computer programs...

And then, once there are AI's that know both English and
Lojban and Loglish, the translation of science, literature
and so forth into Lojban and/or Loglish becomes a possibility --
and the use of Lojban and/or Loglish as a primary language 
becomes a possibility...

> > -- included mappings of each Lojban word into
> > appropriate WordNet senses
> > 
> > -- included mappings of each Lojban
> > argument-position
> > into an appropriate FrameNet case-role
> 
> These seem like likely goals in any case (not
> necessarily using WordNet and FrameNet, but some
> such schemata).  

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...

> Since the basic Lojban
> vocabulary is small, unambiguous, and still
> somewhat under its designers' control, the
> fundamental part could be done fairly rapidly
> (does WordNet have a set of basic notions in
> terms of which all others are defined as FrameNet
> seems to have a set of relations to cover all
> cases?).  The task of accounting for the derived
> values for lujvo -- and the imported values for
> fuhivla -- will be more complex but still
> relatively easy compared to dealing with the
> whole of English -- or even a reasonable sample
> (the classic 10,000 words, say).
> To be sure, given the nature of the Lojban
> community, some proposals will be disputed and
> modified but this can be restricted, as has been
> done already for cmavo (indeed, the process into
> which this project might fit is already under
> way).  We may not have what is needed at the
> moment, but it is not so far off as you seem to
> think (nor as expensive).

Well, when these resources are created, I'll be very happy
to think about how to use them in AI systems.

I believe you are underestimating the amount of work required
to create them, however.

And, critically, until the derived values for lujvo are dealt with,
such a resource will be of very limited use.  Most English words
will translate into lujvo, obviously.

> Well, I think that if the learning could be
> improved, a far larger segment of the present
> community could be brought up to speed and that
> would appraoch at least the critical mass needed.

This may well be correct....
 
> Lojban requires less of the AI's, because it's
> much less ambiguous
> (the only significant ambiguity, so far as I can
> tell, residing in tanru
> and in reference resolution mechanisms).>>
> 
> Yeah, it has actually managed to have a reference
> system that is less effective than English, a
> fairly remarkable achievement in its own right
> (to be sure, it has, in theory, a foolproof
> reference system, but it has proven unworkable
> even for written communication).

This is something I haven't fully thought through in a Loglish context.

For Loglish, I may well introduce a completely different way of doing
referencing -- separate from either English or Lojban....
 
> Yes, I agree that seelling Loglish would be a lot
> easier and that, therefore, if either of these
> ideas is to get off the ground, Loglish is the
> one that will make it. My point is only that this
> is a sad state of affairs, since the adevantages
> ultimately lie with Lojban (or some improved
> version thereof).

I agree with the above paragraph... 

but I fear that in my old age 
I have become more pragmatic and less idealistic ;-p


-- 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.