[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: more thoughts on lujvo
- To: John Cowan <cowan@snark.thyrsus.com>, Ken Taylor <taylor@gca.com>
- Subject: Re: more thoughts on lujvo
- From: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!jimc
- In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 09 Dec 91 11:03:00 +1200." <9112082302.AA16125@julia.math.ucla.edu>
- Reply-To: cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!jimc
- Sender: Lojban list <cbmvax!uunet!pucc.princeton.edu!LOJBAN>
Chris Handley <CHandley@GANDALF.OTAGO.AC.NZ> writes:
> Dave Cortesi raises some interesting ideas on th relationship
> between the speaker and the listener. This is especially true if
> these are of different cultures and may therefore apply different
> "world knowledge" to the interpretation.
>
> What happens if the auditor is a computer? Even reasonably smart
> computer programs are (typically) woefully lacking in any sort of
> world-knowledge and have very little culture to fall back on...
Some Loglanists and also Language X people have been reluctant to
put computer processing high on their list of goals. I also doubt
that either language will actually be used a lot in practice for
computer processing. But the discipline of making the language
comprehensible to a computer, I think, is very valuable. It
implies, for example, that ambiguity is extremely expensive and
should be avoided wherever feasible. Computer orientation also
puts a premium on simplicity. Both of these dimensions have a big
impact on how easy it is for the humans to learn and use the
language, and to use it as a model in language research. Thus
even though I don't expect to use it much on computers, I feel
that accomodating computer analysis is important.
-- jimc