On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 01:19:19AM -0700, libifrid@gmail.com wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 01:52:26PM -0700, libi...@gmail.com <javascript:>wrote: > > > I mean, I know it doesn't make > > > sense, but I understood this language should be understood even by > > > computers, and this means that it does not require thinking or knoledge > > > (like the knowledge that that meaning doesn't make sense) for understaning > > > sentences. > > > > That conclusion is not entirely true. _Understanding_ regular lojban of people > > talking to each other is probably not that much easier than understanding english. > > However, at least lojban is not as ambiguous, so you don't have to deal with > > the problem of parsing the sentence before trying to understand it. > > (I mean, people don't know what "understanding" really means) > > So, you mean that the only advantage of Lojban is that you don't need to > parse the sentences, but the meaning is indeed ambigous. This does not look > so big advantage. Isn't it? or did I miss some another advantages of Lojban? > As unambiguous as possible. It's very vague though, as all natural languages are. But that's not what I meant to say. Assuming we would have solved parsing and disambiguation issues for english, it is still hard to "understand" both, disambiguated english and lojban. We are still stuck with the thousands of years old question of what the meaning of an utterance is. Just wanted to take away your illusion of lojban being "the language you can use to talk to computers". Lojban makes that much easier on the interface (language) level, but that doesn't solve semantics and scientifically we are not there yet. .u'iru'e v4hn
Attachment:
pgpIU273rXaWm.pgp
Description: PGP signature