Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: thoughts on numerical language

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2001 11:13:16 EST

In a message dated 12/3/2001 7:33:00 PM Central Standard Time, 
[email-masked] writes:

> . In computers, you compile a source code to machine 
> language. I'm thinking of compiling a normal languague to "machine 
> code". Thus I am defining this machine code.
> 

This sounds like direct semantic representations, i.e., the last 
linguistcalike representation of propositions/thoughts. In that case, the 
usual thought about its nature would be a central concept with the other 
factors in the the proposition dnagling from it by uniquely specified hooks. 
That is, a variety of binary hooks, one end of which is always the central 
concept, the other the argument, if you will, and the hook specifying the 
type of connection. Supposing for the moment that "give" is a simple concept 
(rather than, say, "transfer of possession without compensation" which might 
have more detailed structure and ways for hoooks to attach). The it could 
have a variety of hooks: agent, recipient, specification of what possessed, 
purpose, and so on. But would need no one of these, giving rise to a number 
of different thoughts from the general idea of giving to a completely 
detailed description to a particular act of giving. Only one type of hook 
can be unspecified (and even that is probably a mistake); all the rest have 
particular functions. The alternative is to build the hooks into the 
central concept -- but then you always have some left over that you need to 
add in some cases. And for general semantics (no caps!) the more analytic 
approach is best, since different langauges collapse hooks into concepts in 
different ways.