[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Semantic Representation of Lojban
OK, cool. My thought was to do the pred log first and then deal with what is
left over, yours is to sort out the pred log and (much of) the leftover first
and deal with a lot of that leftover. We are both going to run into the problem
of overlap at some point, apparently factual sentences that are used to express
emotions and the opposite. Until the, however, we can start with the clearly
marked bits of Lojban: attitudinals to express emotions, imperatives to express
requests, the fraught sentences with 'djica' and 'nitcu' to express/report
needs. So far, this is vocab look up and a little parsing. What comes next in
terms of making these classifications when they are embedded or implicit or
disguised? And, of course, how much of this hinges on fairly complete word
semantics for various preds and compounds? The first part won't take a thousand
hours (nor probably a hundred). the next part leads you into the whirlpool that
also involves the other approach, so step-wise mutual adapting, hopefully always
in an upward direction.
----- Original Message ----
From: .alyn.post. <alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 4:35:57 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Semantic Representation of Lojban
I'd like to ellaborate a little more on this, because the link I
provided has a low information content. I need to solve problems
like this:
Nonviolent Communication[1] has a four-part communication model
called OFNR[2]. In it, you state your observation, your feeling,
your need, and (optionally) a request.
This turns out to be difficult, because we constantly mix
observations and feelings, state judgements as if they were
feelings, &c. It is something that takes practice to do well.
I want to be able to classify a Lojban statement based on a
constraint, like this:
Does statement X consist of an observation, then a feeling, then
a need, and then optionally a request.
The idea being that one can type in what *seems* like an OFNR
statement, and have the computer call you on it if it isn't.
The above is actually quite complex, compared to the first version
of what I want to do, which is to have a conversation with ~20 valsi
and a finite state machine with something like that many states, and
use a simple version of the above classifier as to control state
transition. The classifier won't need to handle anything outside
the scope of those ~20 valsi, save to transition to a "maybe you
ought to write that piece you clever monkey" state.
I hope that demonstrates that I don't need a formal solution to the
problem, but that I need something *like* a solution to the problem,
and I hope that gives a better idea of the kind of thing I have in
mind, as I'm working on and interested in this topic.
-Alan
1: http://www.cnvc.org/
2: http://en.nvcwiki.com/index.php/Four_part_model
On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 03:11:07PM -0700, .alyn.post. wrote:
> By "playing with it," I mean specifically that I have an application
> in mind[1] and will be doing the minimum amount of work in this
> domain to support that application, with my goal being to develop
> and deliver the application, rather than a formal solution to this
> problem.
>
> The initial version of the application requires only a pathetically
> bad approximation to this problem, and so I will be able to use the
> result in well under a few thousand man-hours.
>
> -Alan
>
> 1: http://wiki.call-cc.org/eggref/4/kiksispehi
>
> On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 02:01:56PM -0800, John E Clifford wrote:
> > As a practical matter, the first (and officially easiest -- but time will
>tell)
>
> > part would be to devise the rules for working back from Lojban surface
> > structures to the underlying predicate logic ones: all logical connectives
> > between sentences, all quantifiers and negations in appropriate prenex
>position
>
> > (so the structure that immediate follows -- a sentence of some sort -- will
>be
>
> > exactly the intended scope). You might also start a bunch of meaning
> > postulates, that relate one concept to others (I suppose, at least initially.
>
> > that the metalanguage will be English) and throw in the laws of logic just in
>
> > case (but they are probably going to be needed early on anyhow, to sort out
> > issues in prenectification). That ought to be worth a few thousand
>man-hours.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: .alyn.post. <alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org>
> > To: lojban@googlegroups.com
> > Sent: Thu, January 6, 2011 2:45:34 PM
> > Subject: [lojban] Semantic Representation of Lojban
> >
> > [I've moved this to it's own thread for higher visibility of the
> > topic.]
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 06, 2011 at 12:38:23PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > > > Well, to a certain extent you're right, but if you choose the
> > > > right kind of semantic representation, you can do things like
> > > > proving that two different strings of Lojban have the same
> > > > meaning. Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the moment no machine
> > > > grammar of Lojban represents the fact that “mi viska do” is
> > > > equivalent to “do se viska mi”.
> > >
> > > Right, very true. People have started playing with that.
> > >
> >
> > I've started playing with it, certainly. Enough to where I'm
> > considering flying out to Penguicon to brainstorm and talk about
> > it with other Lojbanists.
> >
> > If others of you are working on it and are able and interested in
> > meeting about it, will you speak up?
> >
> > -Alan
> > --
> > .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
> >
> > --
> > 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.
> >
>
> --
> .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
--
.i ko djuno fi le do sevzi
--
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.