RE: [lojban] Re: Semantics of lojban and glibau, and Lojban FrameNet revisited

["Ben Goertzel" <ben@goertzel.org>]

 

I agree that sometimes the results of a formalized place structure would suck ass...

 

[p.s. I was tempted to check your Sex Code listed on your website to see if you think "sucking ass" is a good or a bad thing ;-D ;-p]

 

But the question is, what percentage of the time would it be good?

 

If it's good 90% of the time, then it's worth systematizing things and explicitly listing exceptions

 

If it's good 60% of the time, then the systematization isn't worthwhile...

 

My suspicion is that it would be good 80-90% of the time, but I'm far from certain...

 

I guess your intuition is different?  You'd know better than me I suppose...

 

-- Ben G

 

 

-----[on systematizing lujvo]
> 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?

The reason is that sometimes the results of a formalized place
structure suck ass.

:-)

-Robin

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com

---

Yahoo! Groups Links

• To visit your group on the web, go to:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/
   
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
  lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
   
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.