[lojban] Re: Loglish: A Modest Proposal

[John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>]

--- Ben Goertzel <ben@goertzel.org> wrote:> 

> 
> I don't consider Loglish to really be a
> "modified
> English", though I think it could be sold as
> such.
> It's really a "modified Lojban".

Which may be a distinction without a difference,
Lojban (from formal logic) is so much a part,
grammatically, of English that I am fairly sure
transitivity hold.  This one of the reason
loglans  are so usefless for Sapir-Whorf tests
(at least for the hypothesis that Sapir and Whorf
actually hinted at).
     
> > > 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).
> 
> WordNet does have a systematic ontology for
> categorizing
> all the words/senses in it, but not a core
> vocabulary...

Well, as a philosophy teacher, I can never see
the word "ontology" without getting totally
confused (this applies in philosophy as well as
outside), so what does an ontology in this
peculiar sense mean in terms of rigorous unique
specifications of  meaning, the sort that would
have been given by a fixed basic vocabulary and
some rules of combination?



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.