🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <01beb273$f014f100$a0c010ac@ws7966>,
Stefan MUEHLBACHER <SMuehlba@frequentis.com> wrote:
>Patrick Juola <juola@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote in article
><7j1eo5$rbe$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>...
>> In article <37530426.0@news.kabsi.at>, Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at>
>wrote:
>> >
>> 
>> The problem is that the division you are proposing is itself a knowledge
>> domain in need of representation -- as is the knowledge that it is
>> or is not needed to merge the two pieces.
>> 
>> For example, "I am tired and hungry" implies both that "I am tired"
>> and "I am hungry."  
>> 
>> *BUT* "A zebra is black and white" does not imply the two individual
>> statements "A zebra is black" and "A zebra is white." -- most native
>> speakers would agree with the first, but disagree with the 2nd and 3rd.
>> 
>> So somehow you need to represent what is different about the first
>> properties (tired, hungry) and the second (black, white).
>> 
>> As I pointed out, on that path lies madness.
>> 
>
>It is clear that there is additional semantic knowledge necessary to
>decide whether a sentence can be split into parts or not.
>So for each possible operand belonging to the predicate we need this
>information
>in order to represent the information in a useful way.
>
>i.e: the sentence: "A zebra and my document is black and white" consists of
>a predicate that allows two operands. One of them (the subject) can be
>split,
>the other (the color pattern) cannot.
>So this information can be split into the two base knowledge units "A zebra
>is black and white" and "My document is black and white", but not further.
>
>This knowledge is a meta-knowledge about the relation itself.
>
>The only thing I do not understand at the moment is the madness you are
>pointing out. Which requirement causes the madness?
>
>I see no principal problem to provide this information.

The knowledge acquisition bottleneck becomes the madness.  We've just
identified one syntactic construction (identical verb conjunction) to
which you postulate a new KR primitive that must be stored as
meta-knowledge (presumably on most base knowledge units in the database).
I will then identify *another* syntactic construction, to which you
will then postulate another KR primitive, and so forth.  Trust me on this;
I'm a linguist and I can pull constructions indefinitely -- and when I
cease being able to pull them out of thin air, I can always pull them
out of the literature. 8-)

So in the long run, I will present you with some thousand or so
constructions, all of which require you to come up with an ad-hoc
new primitive -- or let's be generous and assume that only half of them
require new primitives.  That's still a lot of data that *isn't*
represented yet.


>> >>(*) Let me also inquire why you choose to make property symbols
>> >>into functions and object symbols into arguments.  Why
>> >>
>> >>is_tired(person).
>> >>
>> >>and not
>> >>
>> >>person(is_tired).
>> >>
>> >
>> >The reason is that there could be additional parameters like:
>> >
>> >is_tired(person,today)
>> >
>> >When I write: persion(is_tired,today) then predicates will be mixed up
>with
>> >operands.
>> 
>> I still don't understand.  Predicates and operands are syntactic
>properties
>> of the representational system you choose -- person(is_tired,today) is
>> a two-place predictate (person), with two operands.
>> 
>> You could just as easily have 
>> 
>> today(person, is_tired).
>> 
>> My question is why you chose to make verbs (and hence copula/adjective
>> pairs) into predicates *INSTEAD* of operands.
>> 
>
>OK, I think it is no principal difference which syntactical representation
>to use. 
>But there is one practical point: for the symbol "person" and for the
>symbol "today"
>we can invent many different relation structures and contexts where these
>symbols can be used.
>But for the symbol "is_tired" we have a narrow set of relation parts:
>1) the one who is tired, the subject
>2) optionally a time
>3) optionally a place
>4) maybe some else, but not many.
>
>For the symbol "person" or "today" exist maybe some hundred relation
>patterns or more where they can be used.

Pick up a good textbook on verb aspects, sir.  I think you're wrong
about the apparent simplicity of verb relation patterns; "The Evolution
of Grammar", by Bybee, Perkins, and Pagliuca lists about a hundred
individual and mostly orthogonal verb "relation parts."

	-kitten