[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban] Semantics of lojban and glibau, and Lojban FrameNet revisited
Sorry to reply to myself
again...
I suppose in this case
the asymmetry of the semantics of "Lojban" versus "English" in Lojban can be
worked around easily via e.g.
.i la lojban HYP
glibau
but that doesn't really
solve the problem of "lojban" being a cmene versus "glibau" being a predicate
with arguments, which seems an odd asymmetry to
me...
This ties in with
something I've thought about before: the need for some kind of ontology of
argument-structures (which would be part of what I called a Lojban FrameNet in
www.goertzel.org/new_research/lojban_AI.pdf
)
Shouldn't there be
something like
_bangu
(meaning a set of
predicates with the same argument structure, all reflecting types of bangu
("language"))
Here
Member(x,
_bangu)
for any predicate x
would imply
arg1 is the x
language, used by arg2 to communicate arg3
Then instead of explicitly articulating the argument structure for all
the words indicating all the different languages, one would simply have to say
something like
"The following are
members of _bangu:
glibau
lojbanu
chinese [whatever the
lojban word for that is]
...
etc.
"
Taking this kind of
approach to defining argument structures would seem to reduce the risk of odd
inconsistencies occurring in the dictionary of argument-structures... I'm
curious why a systematic approach like this wasn't taken in constructing the
Lojban dictionary, since Lojbanoidic folks seem so interested in order and
systematicity... it's odd that the argument-structures are only imperfectly and
informally systematized, no?
-- Ben
G
I don't
like
.i la lojban HYP
mintu le glibau
because this is a
posited equivalence between two entities of different types, it seems
semantically incorrect even though it may (?) be syntactically
allowable.
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Yahoo! Groups Links