Re: [lojban] Re: Questions about jorne

[Oren <get.oren@gmail.com>]

Lojban is meant for human communication, one result of this is a
limited vocabulary size, and reliance on compounds.

CWL and EmotionML are not meant for human communication, and rely on
[1] extensive and customizable vocabulary, and [2] a directed graph
markup.

[1] From the specifications: “Concepts included in any natural
language can be the vocaburary of CWL.“
[1] From the EmotionML specifications, "users can create their custom
vocabularies."
[2] Note the graph structure  of CWL:
{cwl.unl}
tim(begin.@entry.@past,long ago)
mod(city.@def,Babylon)
plc(begin.@entry.@past,city.@def)
agt(begin.@entry.@past,people.@def)
obj(begin.@entry.@past,build.@past)
agt(build,people.@def)
obj(build,tower)
aoj(huge,tower)
aoj(seem.@past,tower)
obj(seem.@past,reach.@begin.@soon)
obj(reach.@begin.@soon,tower)
gol(reach.@begin.@soon,heaven.@def.@pl)
{/cwl.unl}
[2] EmotionML uses the following ontologies:
Attitudes
Established emotion
Emergent emotion (full-blown)
Emergent emotion (suppressed)
Moods
Partial emotion (topic shifting)
Partial emotion (simmering)
Stance towards person
Stance towards object/situation
Interpersonal bonds
Altered state of arousal
Altered state of control
Altered state of seriousness
Emotionless

...Can lojban allow that? A brief embedded triple structure for a
forty-one-type-of-relation directed graph markup? Sure, but but it
wont be intelligible lojban.

A limitless vocabulary? The discussion began because we're trying to
work up to a 6000 word dictionary... endless additions don't seem
feasible.

An expansion of emotional ontology, and allowing of custom vocabulary?
Doesn't seem that Lojban is designed to be that flexible.

My above questions are probably due to my misunderstanding of the
specifications of Jorne; it makes much more sense to try and describe
[finite] lojban in terms of these frameworks, and not try and, like
these frameworks, attempt to describe [infinite] natural language text
and emotion.

And I could be way off. I haven't seen any source code either.

On Sun, Apr 18, 2010 at 00:57, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Lojban, as a human language, can't offer what these robust proposals
> > describe-- that is, you can't really argue that lojban is any more
> > 'readable' than these languages, nor believe that it would be briefer or
> > more thorough; but it may be fun to try and define the entire lojban
> > vocabulary using these technologies. Or maybe that's what you meant all
> > along?
>
> Uhhh... that looks like a slightly unreadable version of Lojban using
> English words.
> I really fail to see the difference here, so I gather you're saying
> "Lojban can't do what this thing does that looks like a shitty/
> inadequate version of Lojban." ? I'm really confused about your
> meaning.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.