From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Aug 16 12:15:14 2005 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 30213 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2005 19:15:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m28.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 16 Aug 2005 19:15:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 16 Aug 2005 19:15:12 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E56tx-0001Kq-TC for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:15:10 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E56tP-0001KB-03; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:14:41 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:14:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E56t7-0001K2-6W for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:14:17 -0700 Received: from web81308.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.83]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E56t2-0001Jt-54 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:14:17 -0700 Received: (qmail 65443 invoked by uid 60001); 16 Aug 2005 19:14:10 -0000 Message-ID: <20050816191410.65441.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [68.88.32.165] by web81308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:14:10 PDT Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:14:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -1.5 (-) X-archive-position: 10388 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:12:0:0 X-eGroups-From: John E Clifford From: John E Clifford Reply-To: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Subject: [lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=pzX5H7mF3JsmXAMzSWPxaW9jpwXYz8Z5FOzbALJfHjENxrXUUA X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 24767 It seems we really agree about both the practicalities and the theory; the rest is just details. --- Ben Goertzel wrote: > > > > 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... Well, I said it was in theory. The figure is based on a vocabulary of 4000 words and a "standard-size grammar" including conjugations and declensions of words. Lojban as it stands has a smaller vocabulary and an orders-of-magnitude smaller grammar, so I arbitrarily chopped the time in half for "learning" but left the time for facility (I can't find the reference for this formula and it was a long time ago). Realistically, I think a month of good training would produce someone better than any one now (or almost anyone)even starting with less than ideal users: someone able to carry on a conversation on most topics at English conversational speed. > 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. For reasons already given, I find this as optimistic as my revised figures.But you could have something that sounded right, but contained many actual errors, in probably even less time (starting with relatively intelligent logicians who were native speakers of English). > > 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... There is data on this one. > 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... Which have been, of course, uncontrolled so that you can choose to accept whatever you say as being OK. Several experiments of this intuitive sort with other modified Englishes have come a cropper on this problem. > > 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... We have several problems. 1) A system to read world literature and get it into digestable form 2)prior to that a system for storing all of this in accessible format 3) a system for querying this stored data. English plays a necessary role (for English material) only for 1. It may have some heuristic value for 2 and 3 but is inessential for them -- and, indeed, positively disruptive in at least some parts of each. The use of a modified form of English for 3 (I can't imagine it seriously considered for 2 unless it were assumed that only English literature was worth including and only English speakers were going to query the data) is a concession to the market, although it may prove adequate for the task (eventually augmented by similar modifications of other querying languages (not too difficult in theory if Loglish works). > 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... Now, this seems pie-in-the-sky and, happily, no particular part of Lojban planning (the stuff about translating scientific literature is pretty much that too, but at least conceivable and I note you wisely refrain from talking about translating imaginative literature.) > > > -- 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... 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). > > 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. Dictionary writing is a peculiar skill. If we get someone good at it -- and there seems to be no way of predicting this before a few hundred samples come in -- it will go quite fast; otherwise it will indeed be a long task with much backing and filling. I suppose my optimism is based on the suspicion that among us there is at least one person with that skill (though he may not know it yet) who can be convinced to undertake the task. The raw material is pretty much at hand (more so than for English, say) and is of manageable size. > 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. By the simple fact that there are a lot more English words than gismu, true. Although many may not translate as words at all but merely as places within other predicates for example. It does not seem that we need to aim for a Lojban expression to cover every English word (and certainly not every sense of every English word), merely enough to cover all the topics we want to cover and the ability to add new ones as needed. but you are right that the topic of expanding to cover lujvo is a difficult one if we have to work merely with the forms; if we get the place-structure derivation, it will be much less a problem -- at worst comparable to figuring out the meaning of an English word from context. With occasional error in both cases. > > 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).>> > === message truncated === > <<> 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....>> If you come up with something let us know -- mayhap we can borrow it and save Lojban's bacon. <<> Yes, I agree that selling 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>> Gee, as I get nearer to 70 I find myself being more optimistic about most things that do not involve politics (which this issue does I suppose) and giving up politics as hopeless (given the small amount of money at my disposal). 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.