From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Mon Apr 09 20:50:30 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 10 Apr 2001 03:50:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 79721 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2001 03:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2001 03:50:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta1 with SMTP; 10 Apr 2001 03:50:29 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.10.0/8.10.0/ITS-5.0/standard) with ESMTP id f3A3oT127137 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:50:29 -0600 (MDT) Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2001 21:50:29 -0600 (MDT) To: Subject: Re: [lojban] Place notation in lojban In-Reply-To: <20010410033307.21475.qmail@web3805.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII From: Jay Kominek On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Samuel Rivier wrote: > I have a question regarding the original creation of > lojban. It seems odd that this language designed for > ease of computer interpretation would use such a > complex system of place notation for gismu. It is perfectly natural to a computer. The gismu acts like a function, with its arguments being the sumti filling its places. > I don't > understand how that would be ideal if a computer would > have to learn that system for each individual gismu. you can't escape the need for having to store and process semantic information. the nature of the gismu make it easy to store and work with the semantic information, however. > Wouldn't it be better to use the more naturalistic > method of creating the place notation by description? Huh? If you mean assigning meaning way natural languages do... well, then what would be the point of using Lojban instead of a natural language? (I'm talking from a point of view very interested in the use of Lojban in human computer interaction, mind you.) - Jay Kominek Waiting Is.