🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at> writes:

    Stefan> knowledge is global symbols or identifiers.  How is it
    Stefan> possible to keep symbols unique when there is not only one
    Stefan> community creating new symbols but maybe some
    Stefan> thousands. 

Please  refer to  how  the DNS  (Domain  Name System  --- an  Internet
service that  every Internetizen is using almost  every minute) works,
particularly how the name  assignments are effectively and efficiently
organized and  maintained.  Note also  how the authority  of assigning
names  is  effectively  delegated  to  different  organizations  (which
numbers in thousands or tens of thousands).



    >> Who manages them?  A machine, or a human being?

    Stefan> First of all there should be a naming convention. Then
    Stefan> somebody has to keep the first context unique: This task
    Stefan> is similar to URL management in the internet. New symbols
    Stefan> can be invented by a human being or by a machine that
    Stefan> already knows the context.  (The resource description
    Stefan> framework is based on a similar idea
    Stefan> http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/).

You've only mentioned how the  names will be *created*.  How about the
maintenance?  Who *assigns* meanings to the names?




    >> Without anyone understanding it, how would you expect the
    >> programmers to implement and *debug* the programs?

    Stefan> I am currently debugging a program that uses symbols like
    Stefan> that. Now you know that the symbols are understandable,
    Stefan> but not very well.  Providing a map will make it much more
    Stefan> readable. Providing another map with symbols from another
    Stefan> natural language will make the knowledge translatable.  

So,  who's  going to  provide  that map?   Does  this  person need  to
understand the knowledge represented?



    Stefan> It is clear that the result is not yet a natural language,
    Stefan> but it is already understandable without big learning
    Stefan> effort, because the symbols are already known from a
    Stefan> natural language.

I don't think so.  Please tell  me which symbol in English maps to the
Chinese  ideograph <qing2>,  which is  an idea  covering  { "emotion",
"passion", "love",  ... } but not  being the union  or intersection of
them.  Even  translators find it  hard to translate the  isolated word
<qing2> into Western languages.



    Stefan> The advantage of this would be: nobody has to learn a new
    Stefan> language, the translation into a natural language is just
    Stefan> a matter of symbol mapping and syntax.

Wrong.   Translation is  not simply  word-for-word  replacement.  Very
often, word A in language X can  be translated into word P,Q,R or S in
language  Y,  depending on  context.   At the  same  time,  word T  in
language Y  may be translated  as words  B, C, D  or E in  language X,
again depending on context.


How is  your system going  to handle such  cases?  How will  idioms be
handled?  Will  your system  turn "it's a  piece of cake"  into "<na4>
<shi4> <yi1jian4>  <dan4gao1>" (literally: "that is a  piece of cake")
in Mandarin?  Will it become "Gxi estas eto da kuko" in Esperanto?



    Stefan> You are right. There must be at least some people that
    Stefan> know the internal representations.  But it is not
    Stefan> necessary for the big community to learn them.

This statement is  tautology.  The big community doesn't  have to know
all the words  in a dictionary (of the  local language).  Only experts
need to  do so.  The  big community doesn't  have to understand  how a
nuclear  power plant  works.  Only  experts need  to do  so.   The big
community  doesn't have  to know  quantum  mechanics or  how to  prove
Fermat's Last Theorem.  Only a few people would need to know them.


But if my memory is  function, you previous claimed that NOBODY needed
to  understand the  internal representation  in your  proposed system.
Now,  you  admit that  SOMEBODY  has  to  understand it.   Aren't  you
shooting yourself on the foot?



    Stefan> You are right again. Any representation can be written
    Stefan> down. What I meant here is that a global representation
    Stefan> will be better understood when converted in the sense of
    Stefan> the maps in the examples above. 

I don't think so.  What you presented above seems to be a construction
of a big dictionary.  You gave no idea on how syntax is to be handled.




-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

> One problem with this idea is that different cultures do not always place
> the dividing lines that seperate one concept from another in the same place.
> Suppose, for example, that most languages have a word for the color "red".
> It is quite possible that some other language might place the dividing line
> between red and orange in a different place along the spectrum and have
> words for red-orange, and yellow-orange, but no word at all for what we
> would call "pure" red.
> 
> This is a simplistic example, but anyone who has mastered more than one
> language can, I'm sure, come up with examples of words in one language that
> have no equivalent at all in another language. "Gem�tlichkeit" comes to mind
> as a word that has no exact English equivalent; only a few words with
> similar meaning.

And the problem isn't just with everyday words; even technical lingo is 
faced with it.

I was hired to translate a code of ethics for the Canadian association 
of model rocketry enthusiast. My client was shocked to learn that 
words decribing types of rocket engines were not the same in French as 
in English. The origin of the problem was the original concept used to 
describe things were different in one and in the other so how the 
concepts were applied caused the division point between different types 
of engines to be based on entirely different principles. It posed quite 
a few problems in equivocating the text.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the fundamental differences 
between French and English was that French tended to describe what a 
thing did whereas English tended to describe the thing itself (or was it 
the other way around?). I imagine that that type of problem would come 
up over and over.


ng.translation,comp.ai.nat-lang,cu.ml.linguist-list,alt.language.a
machine translating technique could be evolved.

Pierre

The first question to ask is what is the purpose of a universal written
language:
1.� For translating from one language to another.
2.� A common language for all users to communicate with each other.
3.� Machine processing.

Each of these have their own requirements.� Machine processing may be
something as simple as sorting text (which is done now and has been
simplified using unicode) or as complex as translating from one natural
language to another.� In this latter case, the number of combinations, i.e.
English to French, French to German, etc. is large and in one case has been
simplified by using Esperanto as an intermediary step, i.e. English to
Esperanto, Esp. to German, French, etc.� However, this procedure only
reduces the number of dictionaries required but not the grammars.
In designing Windows applications using icons and other graphical symbols,
it turns out that what works for English-based languages doesn't� work for
Asian-based languages.� So using ideograms has its drawbacks also.
I think that what is required is a pidgin-computerese that everyone uses on
the net,� sorts well,� has no� accent marks, no vowel nor constanant
combinations, and is not designed to be spoken (although there is nothing to
prevent that).� The language would inflected (like German or Latin) but
word� position would be immaterial.� Anybody could add new words by
publishing them and they would be accepted by general usage, i.e. if nobody
used a word, it would be dropped.
This type of lingua-franca has been used many times in the commercial world
when diverse native speakers had to communicate.

Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} schrieb in Nachricht
<7fk8u3npmd.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>...
>>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at> writes:
>
>
>You've only mentioned how the  names will be *created*.  How about the
>maintenance?  Who *assigns* meanings to the names?
>


Meaning emerges in a knowledge base when pieces of knowledge are added
that express a kind of relation among symbols.

Examples are: Relations:             Paris is the capital of france.
                          Algorithms:           i.e. a function that checks,
if a given number is a prime number.
                          Reasoning rules: When a is mother of b and a is
mother of c then b and c are siblings.
Maybe there are more.

So meaning assigns anybody that adds some knowledge to the knowledge base.
Remember that in this context i used the word 'meaning' from the point of
view of the knowledge base.
From the point of view of the person who added the knowledge the 'meaning'
of the word was already existing before.

>I don't think so.  Please tell  me which symbol in English maps to the
>Chinese  ideograph <qing2>,  which is  an idea  covering  { "emotion",
>"passion", "love",  ... } but not  being the union  or intersection of
>them.  Even  translators find it  hard to translate the  isolated word
><qing2> into Western languages.


In this case I suggest to use the word <qing2> also in the english mapping.
It is also not unusual to use some english words in german and some german
words in english.

>
>
>
>    Stefan> The advantage of this would be: nobody has to learn a new
>    Stefan> language, the translation into a natural language is just
>    Stefan> a matter of symbol mapping and syntax.
>
>Wrong.   Translation is  not simply  word-for-word  replacement.  Very
>often, word A in language X can  be translated into word P,Q,R or S in
>language  Y,  depending on  context.   At the  same  time,  word T  in
>language Y  may be translated  as words  B, C, D  or E in  language X,
>again depending on context.
>


Yes, this is the reason why I came to the idea of global unique symbols.
When language Y is a global unique symbol representation then it will
occur (practically) never that a global unique symbol will be translated to
words B,C,D or E depending on the context, because the meaning of the symbol
Y is unique.
B,C,D and E must be real synonyms. So each of them will be correct though
maybe some
sound better. But translation is no principal difficulty as far as the
meaning is important and not the style.

The other direction, the conversion of language X to a global unique symbol
representation may
be indeed sometimes ambigous. In this case the knowledgebase should ask,
which version to take,
before doing the conversion.
But the ambiguity is much more restricted than in the case of
translation from natural language to natural language.

>
>
>But if my memory is  function, you previous claimed that NOBODY needed
>to  understand the  internal representation  in your  proposed system.
>Now,  you  admit that  SOMEBODY  has  to  understand it.   Aren't  you
>shooting yourself on the foot?
>


No, I just said, the advantage of the use of natural words is, that nobody
has to learn
a new language. I meant, it is not necessary to learn thousands of new
words.


Stefan

Gary Shannon schrieb in Nachricht <927263576.776.5@news.remarQ.com>...
>
>Stefan M�hlbacher wrote in message <374476c8.0@news.kabsi.at>...
>>Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} schrieb in Nachricht
>><7f3e0spise.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>...
>


>Suppose, for example, that most languages have a word for the color "red".
>It is quite possible that some other language might place the dividing line
>between red and orange in a different place along the spectrum and have
>words for red-orange, and yellow-orange, but no word at all for what we
>would call "pure" red.

In this case I suggest to create global symbol representations for

global_color_red
global_color_orange
global_color_yellow
global_color_red-orange
global_color_yellow-orange

So all will be just represented as different symbols.

I think examining more examples like this will point out many sources of
misunderstanding.

But how is the ratio of words that have equivalents in another language to
the words that have no equivalent?

Is it 10000 : 1, 1000 : 1 or 100 : 1  ?

How much knowledge can be expressed in a natural language that can be also
expressed in another natural language?
How much is the rest?

I don't know, but I am shure about the following: The knowledge that can be
commonly expressed is huge.

-- Stefan

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at> writes:


    Stefan> But how is the ratio of words that have equivalents in
    Stefan> another language to the words that have no equivalent?

    Stefan> Is it 10000 : 1, 1000 : 1 or 100 : 1 ?

I think it is very high.  Seldom do two languages have words that mean
EXACTLY the same thing, covering EXACTLY the same range of ideas.

You may not be able to  notice this when you're only comparing English
to another Western language.  Try  to compare English with an Oriental
language.  The infeasibility reveals immediately.




    Stefan> I don't know, but I am shure about the following: The
    Stefan> knowledge that can be commonly expressed is huge.

So, even our  most powerful computers today couldn't  handle such huge
volumn of knowledge.  Neither  have anyone invented the techonology to
manage such knowledge,  so that computers can be  programmed to handle
it EFFICIENTLY.




-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

John Lyons's Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics (1968, Cambridge University
Press) contains a very interesting discussion (pp.56-9) about the
"colour-terms".


Gary Shannon wrote:

> Stefan M�hlbacher wrote in message <374476c8.0@news.kabsi.at>...
> >Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} schrieb in Nachricht
> ><7f3e0spise.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>...
>
> >In this case a global symbol consists of a sequence of contexts (global,
> >language) where the last entry (english) is unique within the resulting
> >context .
> >
> >When using global symbols it is possible to define relational facts like
> >this:
> >
> >global_relation_isa(global_language, global_language_english)
> >
> One problem with this idea is that different cultures do not always place
> the dividing lines that seperate one concept from another in the same place.
> Suppose, for example, that most languages have a word for the color "red".
> It is quite possible that some other language might place the dividing line
> between red and orange in a different place along the spectrum and have
> words for red-orange, and yellow-orange, but no word at all for what we
> would call "pure" red.
>
> This is a simplistic example, but anyone who has mastered more than one
> language can, I'm sure, come up with examples of words in one language that
> have no equivalent at all in another language. "Gem�tlichkeit" comes to mind
> as a word that has no exact English equivalent; only a few words with
> similar meaning.
>
> --Gary.

Since computers are digital, and visual versus verbal (atleast until recenrly).
Why not have the middle lingo be one of visual means.. I know said this before,
but not to all the NG this email will be going to..

I know more people do not see in the exact same visual spectrum, some people are
color blind, but .

Why not have the intermediary lingo be one of visual/vocal means and not this
primative typed medium?

Did you go to the store?

picture of you, picture of store, question mark.

On my end, it would look like "did you go to the store?"
but to my french friend it would translate into what ever the symbols translate
into french.. Or what he/she has on her/his computer..

Of course if I asked "Did you go to the store"?

It would show:

Symbol for past, picture of my french friends (since it is her/his computer, and
I am the one asking), and a picture of a strore.

Sorry of I over labor the imagery, but I am tired, and want to be clear.


Stefan Mühlbacher wrote:

> Gary Shannon schrieb in Nachricht <927263576.776.5@news.remarQ.com>...
> >
> >Stefan Mühlbacher wrote in message <374476c8.0@news.kabsi.at>...
> >>Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} schrieb in Nachricht
> >><7f3e0spise.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>...
> >
>
> >Suppose, for example, that most languages have a word for the color "red".
> >It is quite possible that some other language might place the dividing line
> >between red and orange in a different place along the spectrum and have
> >words for red-orange, and yellow-orange, but no word at all for what we
> >would call "pure" red.
>
> In this case I suggest to create global symbol representations for
>
> global_color_red
> global_color_orange
> global_color_yellow
> global_color_red-orange
> global_color_yellow-orange
>
> So all will be just represented as different symbols.
>
> I think examining more examples like this will point out many sources of
> misunderstanding.
>
> But how is the ratio of words that have equivalents in another language to
> the words that have no equivalent?
>
> Is it 10000 : 1, 1000 : 1 or 100 : 1  ?
>
> How much knowledge can be expressed in a natural language that can be also
> expressed in another natural language?
> How much is the rest?
>
> I don't know, but I am shure about the following: The knowledge that can be
> commonly expressed is huge.
>
> -- Stefan

--

Mike Adams
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator of:
AdultHumor-L@makelist.com      Humor
Poetry-L@makelist.com          Poetry
Future-History-L@onelist.com   Future History of Humanity and Beyond
Abrigon-L@makelist.com         My Cyber Family
Abrigon-World@makelist.com     My Gaming World - High Tech looks like
                                  Magic.
Alaska                        Alaska, says it all.

Life in non sequitur, but does that stop me from living?
So who cancelled my reality check anyways?
If I wanted your chain letters, and porn
I would take it from your cold dead HD

<html>
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/1429/me.jpg">
<br>
</html>

Why does it have to be direct translation? Why not convert the meaning from
one lingo, such as English, then into a Symbol for the idea/concept, and
then back into the other lingo, such as Spanish?

I know still some room of oppses, but ...

Man=symbol for man (like you see on the bathroom door)=spanish for man.

Mike

George Ho wrote:

> I used to be fascinated by the idea of machine translation. After years
> of practice in the real world translation, I suppose machine translation
> is just a toy for people in the ivory tower.
>
> I don't believe machine translation can really become commercialized in
> the near future. Every good translator knows that translation does not
> only involve linguistic skills but cover a wide range of knowledge
> database. They must be very versatile. Otherwise there will be no "guts"
> in their works. Besides, a good translator, like a good writer, depends
> on their inspiration more than often and tends to change their wording
> from time to time to make their translation as perfect as possible. I
> don't believe a computer can do that sort of self-polishing at all.

--

Mike Adams
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator of:
AdultHumor-L@makelist.com      Humor
Poetry-L@makelist.com          Poetry
Future-History-L@onelist.com   Future History of Humanity and Beyond
Abrigon-L@makelist.com         My Cyber Family
Abrigon-World@makelist.com     My Gaming World - High Tech looks like
                                  Magic.
Alaska                        Alaska, says it all.

Life in non sequitur, but does that stop me from living?
So who cancelled my reality check anyways?
If I wanted your chain letters, and porn
I would take it from your cold dead HD

<html>
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/1429/me.jpg">
<br>
</html>

Since computers are digital, and visual versus verbal (atleast until recenrly).
Why not have the middle lingo be one of visual means.. I know said this before,
but not to all the NG this email will be going to..

I know more people do not see in the exact same visual spectrum, some people are
color blind, but .

Why not have the intermediary lingo be one of visual/vocal means and not this
primative typed medium?

Did you go to the store?

picture of you, picture of store, question mark.

On my end, it would look like "did you go to the store?"
but to my french friend it would translate into what ever the symbols translate
into french.. Or what he/she has on her/his computer..

Of course if I asked "Did you go to the store"?

It would show:

Symbol for past, picture of my french friends (since it is her/his computer, and
I am the one asking), and a picture of a strore.

Sorry of I over labor the imagery, but I am tired, and want to be clear.


Stefan Mühlbacher wrote:

> Gary Shannon schrieb in Nachricht <927263576.776.5@news.remarQ.com>...
> >
> >Stefan Mühlbacher wrote in message <374476c8.0@news.kabsi.at>...
> >>Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} schrieb in Nachricht
> >><7f3e0spise.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>...
> >
>
> >Suppose, for example, that most languages have a word for the color "red".
> >It is quite possible that some other language might place the dividing line
> >between red and orange in a different place along the spectrum and have
> >words for red-orange, and yellow-orange, but no word at all for what we
> >would call "pure" red.
>
> In this case I suggest to create global symbol representations for
>
> global_color_red
> global_color_orange
> global_color_yellow
> global_color_red-orange
> global_color_yellow-orange
>
> So all will be just represented as different symbols.
>
> I think examining more examples like this will point out many sources of
> misunderstanding.
>
> But how is the ratio of words that have equivalents in another language to
> the words that have no equivalent?
>
> Is it 10000 : 1, 1000 : 1 or 100 : 1  ?
>
> How much knowledge can be expressed in a natural language that can be also
> expressed in another natural language?
> How much is the rest?
>
> I don't know, but I am shure about the following: The knowledge that can be
> commonly expressed is huge.
>
> -- Stefan

--

Mike Adams
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator of:
AdultHumor-L@makelist.com      Humor
Poetry-L@makelist.com          Poetry
Future-History-L@onelist.com   Future History of Humanity and Beyond
Abrigon-L@makelist.com         My Cyber Family
Abrigon-World@makelist.com     My Gaming World - High Tech looks like
                                  Magic.
Alaska                        Alaska, says it all.

Life in non sequitur, but does that stop me from living?
So who cancelled my reality check anyways?
If I wanted your chain letters, and porn
I would take it from your cold dead HD

<html>
<img src="http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Chamber/1429/me.jpg">
<br>
</html>

In article <374832D9.D9F2F825@uaf.edu>,
Mike Adams  <mike_adams61@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Since computers are digital, and visual versus verbal (atleast until rece=
>nrly).
>Why not have the middle lingo be one of visual means.. I know said this b=
>efore,
>but not to all the NG this email will be going to..
>
>I know more people do not see in the exact same visual spectrum, some peo=
>ple are
>color blind, but .
>
>Why not have the intermediary lingo be one of visual/vocal means and not =
>this
>primative typed medium?
>
>Did you go to the store?
>
>picture of you, picture of store, question mark.
>
>On my end, it would look like "did you go to the store?"
>but to my french friend it would translate into what ever the symbols tra=
>nslate
>into french.. Or what he/she has on her/his computer..
>
>Of course if I asked "Did you go to the store"?
>
>It would show:
>
>Symbol for past, picture of my french friends (since it is her/his comput=
>er, and
>I am the one asking), and a picture of a strore.
>

The problems here are twofold.  First, I don't see what advantage
coming up with a "symbol" for "store" has over simply using a symbol
comprised of five letters, the first an s, the second a t, and so
forth. 

The second problem is that different languages don't divide the
universe into the same set of primitive symbols.  A good and accessible
example is provided by Japanese.

The question 'Do you like fish?' would be expresssed in Japanese as something
akin to 'Is fish friendly?'

The symbol for fish is obvious.  What's the other symbol you would use?

	-kitten

<374832BC.907601ED@uaf.edu>, Mike Adams <fsmca1@uaf.edu> inimitably
wrote:
>Why not have the intermediary lingo be one of visual/vocal means and not this
>primative typed medium?
>
>Did you go to the store?
>
>picture of you, picture of store, question mark.
>
>On my end, it would look like "did you go to the store?"
>but to my french friend it would translate into what ever the symbols translate
>into french.. Or what he/she has on her/his computer..

The science-fiction author Greg Bear describes this sort of
communication in the novel 'Eon'.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

Mike Adams ha scritto:

> Why not have the intermediary lingo be one of visual/vocal means and not this
> primative typed medium?
>
> Did you go to the store?
>
> picture of you, picture of store, question mark.
>
> On my end, it would look like "did you go to the store?"
> but to my french friend it would translate into what ever the symbols translate
> into french.. Or what he/she has on her/his computer..
>
> Of course if I asked "Did you go to the store"?
>
> It would show:
>
> Symbol for past, picture of my french friends (since it is her/his computer, and
> I am the one asking), and a picture of a strore.
>

It's a nice idea, but even more primitive than the typed medium, I would have
thought; you couldn't express any abstract concepts, for example.

Even the simple example you give above lends itself to any number of
interpretations, such as "Did you go shopping yesterday?", "I wonder why the corner
shop closed down?", "Was your takeover bid for the grocery store successful?", or
"How come you always forget to buy toothpaste"?

Mary
(remove "nospam" to reply)

<7igr2v$u5v$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>, Patrick Juola
<juola@mathcs.duq.edu> inimitably wrote:
>.... and you claim this on the basis of what evidence?

A sequence of pictures without words  - a story-board - can tell a
story. Used all the time in developing TV commercials, for example.
>
>One of the "advantages" of any natural language, pictographic
>or alphabetic, is that new words can be coined and hence any
>language can be arbitrarily precise -- look at the degree of
>precision chemists use in discussing novel compounds,

Well, they have moved on a bit from 'liver of sulfur', but you can't
properly describe a protein in words - the structure in three dimensions
is of the essence.

> and then
>the degree of precision that their marketing departments use in
>coining new names for marketing purposes (Claritin, Xantac, Viagra, &c).

This is 'precision'? In what way? 
>
>What I thought you were arguing a few posts back was that the
>advantage of a pictographic representation is that it gives a more
>natural mapping to the underlying world -- the relationship between
>sign and symbolized isn't arbitrary.  Unfortunately, this fails for
>several reasons -- one, there's no way that you can't make non-arbitary
>relationships to abstract concepts,

Pardon? That's a triple negative: I'm not objecting on purist grounds,
just confused by it.

> and two, that different languages
>will divide the universe-space into different categories, so you'll
>need to put in all the bad-old-arbitrariness in a new guise.
>
Well, you may be right: we don't know yet. I'm just a bit more
optimistic.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

> Mike Adams schrieb in Nachricht <374832BC.907601ED@uaf.edu>...
> Since computers are digital, and visual versus verbal (atleast until
recenrly).
> Why not have the middle lingo be one of visual means.. I know said this
before,
> but not to all the NG this email will be going to..


It is of course possible to use pictograms instead of typed words.
As long as there is a 1 : 1 relationship between the two representations
theoretically nothing changes.

But practically there is a big difference:

For some symbols it may be indeed a good idea to use pictograms, because
they can be understood independent of
the knowledge of any special language.

One of the most important things a global symbol provides is its identity.
This means: two parties can find out that they were
using the same symbol by comparing them and finding out that they are equal.

A computer can easily find out the identity when the data are really equal.
Therefore the pictograms should be exactly identical pixel by pixel.

Now let us assume we describe the symbol fish by a pictogram. It is very
easy, I think we will find a good one.
But the next task is much harder: Now we want to find a symbol for each sort
of fish in the world: I don't know how many there are,
but I think more than 10 000 maybe more than 100 000. ---> We will need a
good resolution for our pictograms.

But when we use a good resolution then its very hard to write down a symbol,
you have to define pixel by pixel in an image editor.
It is also hard to tell, if a pictogram is the original pictogram or if
there are just a few pixel different.
When you receive a pictogram of one sort of fish out of 100 000. How will
you find out its translated name for your language?
This job can be done only by a computer. It would take a long time to find
the symbol in a dictionary.
Words instead can be sorted alphabetically. In this case a dictionary is
useful.

There exist many abstract words without common visual association.


But the whole topic does not solve any knowledge-representation or
language-translation problems, its just a matter of 1 : 1 mapping
of global symbols.

--> Much more interesting is the question whether we can find such symbols
so that we are able to store unambigous knowledge and
if we can translate this stored knowledge to any natural (or at first more
or less natural like) language.

Is there a common scheme for the problem, that for some symbols no direct
translation is possible, because certain symbols are not
available in a natural language?

My theory for this is: at the end it turns out, that each language can
describe the same knowledge, the same facts. But there is a different
way to look at the same thing:

For example:
Let us assume languageA knows only a symbol for the circumference of a
circle, not the radius.
LanguageB knows only a symbol for the radius of a circle, not for the
circumference.

Now both languages can define a circle. They can also define the same
circle.
But a translator cannot translate the size of the circle unless he knows the
relation:
circumference = 2*r*PI

This relation can neither be expressed in languageA nor in languageB.
So there are two ways out of this dilemma:
A) We introduce the word 'circumference' in languageB and 'radius' in
languageA and we tell the relation: circumference = 2*r*PI in languageA and
languageB.
B) We map PI and circumference to an intermediate global representation. The
relation circumference = 2*r*PI is defined only in the
intermediate layer. But we are able to translate the size of the circle
without introducing new symbols for languageA and languageB.

Does a scheme like that cover most symbol mapping problems. Do you know
further problems?


Stefan

>>>>> "John" == John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:

    >> .... and you claim this on the basis of what evidence?

    John> A sequence of pictures without words - a story-board - can
    John> tell a story. Used all the time in developing TV
    John> commercials, for example.

The  correct interpretation relies  heavily on  the audience  having a
presumed *cultural background* as well as context information.


Someone with a cultural background radically different yours would
interpret the story-board in very different ways.  They may even fail
to follow the story.

Several examples with  gestures: When European count from  1 to 5 with
their fingers,  they erect  their fingers in  the order  thumb, index,
middle, ring and then little.   A Chinese usually use the order index,
middle, ring, little and then thumb.   As a result, our hand signs for
these 5 numbers are different!   Moreover, a Chinese "1" sign may mean
"sh...." in  come European countries.  Another  example: some cultures
use nodding to say "no", which is opposite to the European culture.

So, a story-board main making use of nodding as well as hand signs for
numbers would  fail to  get the GLOBAL  audience understand it  in the
same way.  This can be a disadvantage as well as an *advantage*.  Used
properly,  you can use  the same  representation to  convery different
information to people of different  culture.  That can be an effective
means of  broadcasting and concealing information.  This  is of course
difficult to achieve.



-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at> writes:

    Stefan> A computer can easily find out the identity when the data
    Stefan> are really equal.  Therefore the pictograms should be
    Stefan> exactly identical pixel by pixel.

Pixel by pixel?  Are you kidding?


It  is  possible to  DEFINE  the  pictograms  in terms  of  high-level
components (circles,  lines, B-spline  curves) instead of  pixels.  To
compare  2 pictograms  then involves  comparing these  components (and
their  parameters)  instead of  comparing  pixels.   This approach  is
techically    superior.     Consider     a    pictogram    which    is
Circle(100,100,50), which is  a circle of radius 50  units centered at
coordinate  (100,100).   Comparing  it  with another  pictogram  means
comparing the component "Circle" and parameters (100,100,50).  This is
much more precise and efficient.   Pixel by pixel comparison will fail
miserably here: different people (or machine) may pixelize a circle in
slightly different ways.  Some people may draw it rounder than others.
So, the  generated pixels are  slightly different.  As a  result, your
pixel-by-pixel  comparison algorithm  must tolerate  such differences,
and this would inevitably introduce lots of inaccuracies.


    Stefan> Now let us assume we describe the symbol fish by a
    Stefan> pictogram. It is very easy, I think we will find a good
    Stefan> one.  But the next task is much harder: Now we want to
    Stefan> find a symbol for each sort of fish in the world: I don't
    Stefan> know how many there are, but I think more than 10 000
    Stefan> maybe more than 100 000. ---> We will need a good
    Stefan> resolution for our pictograms.

Answer: Derivation

Most fish names  in Chinese are characters derived  from the character
"fish".  The character  for a fish name can  be structurally broken up
into 2  parts.  The  first part, the  signific part, is  the character
"fish", which  is used as a  radical in the fish  name character.  The
second  part, the  phonetic  part, is  a  _hint_ (i.e.  NOT a  precise
transcriptio) to the pronunciation of the fish name.

So, when I encounter an  unknown character (e.g.  those created by the
Japanese themselves) having  this structure, I can know  it's the name
of  a kind  fish.  I  don't even  need to  know how  the  character is
pronounced.  (Some  of these fish-name characters are  invented by the
Japanese,  and  hence  have  no  Chinese pronunciation,  and  I  ain't
interested in knowing how it  is pronounced in Japanese.)  I know it's
a fish and that often suffices.


    Stefan> But when we use a good resolution then its very hard to
    Stefan> write down a symbol, you have to define pixel by pixel in
    Stefan> an image editor.  

It's silly to do it pixel by pixel.

Nowadays,  professional  computer  typesetting  do not  represent  the
printouts pixel  by pixel (how many pixel  are there on an  A4 page at
2400dpi?  Astronomical figure!).  Instead, the printout is *described*
in terms  of high-level componnents: lines,  circles, B-spline curves,
and  characters.   (But characters  in  quality  fonts are  themselved
defined in ters of lines and  curves.)  This not only reduces the data
volume, but also makes the description resolution/device independent.

I can't see any advantage  in defining pictograms pixel by pixel.  Why
not give the shapes of them precise mathematical definitions, in terms
of parameterized lines and curves?  

Chinese characters are basically defined in terms of stroke shapes and
their *relative* position and  intersection with one another.  This is
practical and efficient.  Pixel by pixel definition is impractical and
silly.




    Stefan> It is also hard to tell, if a pictogram
    Stefan> is the original pictogram or if there are just a few pixel
    Stefan> different.  

That's why pixel-based definition fails.  Why not define pictograms by
high-level  components, which  are  more natural  to  human beings  to
understand?  Define them in terms of lines and curves!


    Stefan> My theory for this is: at the end it turns out, that each
    Stefan> language can describe the same knowledge, the same
    Stefan> facts. But there is a different way to look at the same
    Stefan> thing:

That's a "very very different" way.


    Stefan> For example: Let us assume languageA knows only a symbol
    Stefan> for the circumference of a circle, not the radius.
    Stefan> LanguageB knows only a symbol for the radius of a circle,
    Stefan> not for the circumference.

    Stefan> Now both languages can define a circle. They can also
    Stefan> define the same circle.  But a translator cannot translate
    Stefan> the size of the circle unless he knows the relation:
    Stefan> circumference = 2*r*PI

Another  example: How is  French "j'ai  faim" represented?   Would the
representation lead to the English translation "I have hunger" instead
of the more natural "I'm hungry"?











-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

<7fg14jw2l1.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>, Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
<sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk> inimitably wrote:
>Another  example: How is  French "j'ai  faim" represented?   Would the
>representation lead to the English translation "I have hunger" instead
>of the more natural "I'm hungry"?

Always apply the fundamental maxim of translation: 'Translate thoughts
(concepts), not words.'
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

<374c7104.0@news.kabsi.at>, Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at> inimitably
wrote:
>But the next task is much harder: Now we want to find a symbol for each sort
>of fish in the world: I don't know how many there are,
>but I think more than 10 000 maybe more than 100 000. ---> We will need a
>good resolution for our pictograms.

You might have chosen beetles - maybe 100 times as many distinct
species(!). But the vast majority of both fish and beetles have no names
in most languages, which is why scientific ('Latin') names were
invented. Many of the scientific names of life-forms unnamed in ancient
times are at least partly pictographic in concept, anyway. For example,
the Marsh Warbler is 'Acrocephalus palustris' - 'pointed-head of the
marsh'. There are some much better example, if only I could think of
one. (:-( There's an arachnid called something like 'Squashed-thing,
ugly'.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

Yan King Yin's wrote:
>                    my idea is to remove the "semantic"
> part of this problem so that the remaining task for the
> computer is reduced to syntax / transliteration aspects,
> things that computers do well.  

Is this possible?

First of all you will obviously need disambiguation (i.e. for words and
syntactic structures that can be interpreted in two ways you have to
state which interpretation is intended) for this to work. Let's suppose
this is possible for the fragment of speech and the languages you have
in mind (e.g. mathematical texts, technical manuals or law texts and the
languages English, French and German).

But even then there are simple examples where a purely syntactic
approach has to fail, even between relatively similar languages like
English and German. In these two languages the most salient examples for
this are negation and the generic use of articles. A universal language
thus has to contain additional semantic information in order to suffice
as a basis for a correct translation (generation) into other languages. 

There are many ways to formalize semantic information. One approach is
the go for a purely semantic representation as Lee Sau Dan proposes. UNL
possibly uses another. On the other hand one could try to use a natural
language as a basis for the universal language and add a minimum of
semantic information. 

Boyd

-- 
Boyd Buchin                - Fakult�t f�r Informatik
Universit�t der Bundeswehr - 85577 Neubiberg, Germany
http://inf1-www.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de/Boyd

>>>>> "John" == John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:

    >> Another example: How is French "j'ai faim" represented?  Would
    >> the representation lead to the English translation "I have
    >> hunger" instead of the more natural "I'm hungry"?

    John> Always apply the fundamental maxim of translation:
    John> 'Translate thoughts (concepts), not words.'

So, how can you implement this maxim with computer programs?  i.e. How
are  you  going  to  represent  these  concepts in  a  computer  in  a
relatively neutral manner?  Should the computer represent "I'm hungry"
as "I AM hungry" or "I HAVE hunger", or neither (e.g. "I --> <state of
being hungry>")?

If you've been following this thread, you should get what I mean.


-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

<7fbtf6wsae.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>, Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
<sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk> inimitably wrote:
>If you've been following this thread, you should get what I mean.

I know how much you enjoy an interesting argument, but please try to
understand the maxim. It implies that a valid pictogram would not mean
any one of the phrases that you suggest, but all of them.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

In article <LkKh0gB3vET3EwfS@jmwa.demon.co.uk>,
John Woodgate  <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> wrote:
><7igr2v$u5v$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>, Patrick Juola
><juola@mathcs.duq.edu> inimitably wrote:
>>.... and you claim this on the basis of what evidence?
>
>A sequence of pictures without words  - a story-board - can tell a
>story. Used all the time in developing TV commercials, for example.
>>
>>One of the "advantages" of any natural language, pictographic
>>or alphabetic, is that new words can be coined and hence any
>>language can be arbitrarily precise -- look at the degree of
>>precision chemists use in discussing novel compounds,
>
>Well, they have moved on a bit from 'liver of sulfur', but you can't
>properly describe a protein in words - the structure in three dimensions
>is of the essence.
>
>> and then
>>the degree of precision that their marketing departments use in
>>coining new names for marketing purposes (Claritin, Xantac, Viagra, &c).
>
>This is 'precision'? In what way? 
>>
>>What I thought you were arguing a few posts back was that the
>>advantage of a pictographic representation is that it gives a more
>>natural mapping to the underlying world -- the relationship between
>>sign and symbolized isn't arbitrary.  Unfortunately, this fails for
>>several reasons -- one, there's no way that you can't make non-arbitary
>>relationships to abstract concepts,
>
>Pardon? That's a triple negative: I'm not objecting on purist grounds,
>just confused by it.

Sorry -- for "can't" read "can" -- "There is no way you can make non-arbitrary
relationships to abstract concepts.

>> and two, that different languages
>>will divide the universe-space into different categories, so you'll
>>need to put in all the bad-old-arbitrariness in a new guise.
>>
>Well, you may be right: we don't know yet. I'm just a bit more
>optimistic.

Well, if you have a suggestion about how to treat the differential
universe-space problem, I'd be happy.  Just as an example -- are the
fingers, or aren't the fingers, part of the hand?   And what is the
part of the hand that *isn't* the fingers called?  (Similarly with
s/fingers/wrist/)

And how do you express this symbolically?

	-kitten

<7ik75v$11p$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>, Patrick Juola
<juola@mathcs.duq.edu> inimitably wrote:
>Well, if you have a suggestion about how to treat the differential
>universe-space problem, I'd be happy.  Just as an example -- are the
>fingers, or aren't the fingers, part of the hand?   And what is the
>part of the hand that *isn't* the fingers called?  (Similarly with
>s/fingers/wrist/)
>
>And how do you express this symbolically?


The problem seems not to arise in pictographic communication. Using
colour, lines, shading or any visual effect, you can even indicate 'that
part of the palm within 2 cm of the base of the index finger', for
which, AFAIK, there is no single word in any language.

I see a difference between 'pictographic' and 'symbolic'. What I mean by
the former is quasi-realistic representation of objects etc., as in a
strip-cartoon, whereas 'symbolic' implies a stylization, as you see on
the controls of a car or icons on a computer display.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

> So, how can you implement this maxim with computer programs?  i.e. How
> are  you  going  to  represent  these  concepts in  a  computer  in  a
> relatively neutral manner?  Should the computer represent "I'm hungry"
> as "I AM hungry" or "I HAVE hunger", or neither (e.g. "I --> <state of
> being hungry>")?

of For me it is clear that the neutral manner to represent this sentence
consists
of two global symbols (it does not matter if those symbols consist of
letters or
are just pictograms).

1.) State of being hungry: So we need a symbol for a relation that can be
used together with one operand: Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY

2.) The other symbol is needed for the person that is in that state:
Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON.

And the relation may be represented like:
SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY (SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON).

The two sentences "I am hungry" or "I have hunger" are just two ways to
translate the same relation into english.

But this is not really a translation problem. For a first version of a
translation
program it may be enough to declare one possibilty to the favorite when
translating
from global representation to a natural language like representation.

When translating to the global representation then the two versions just
result in
the same internal representation.

But this problem can be handled much easier than that I outlined some
postings before, it is of another problem class.

Stefan M�hlbacher



Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~} <sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk> wrote in article
<7fbtf6wsae.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>...
> >>>>> "John" == John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:
> 
>     >> Another example: How is French "j'ai faim" represented?  Would
>     >> the representation lead to the English translation "I have
>     >> hunger" instead of the more natural "I'm hungry"?
> 
>     John> Always apply the fundamental maxim of translation:
>     John> 'Translate thoughts (concepts), not words.'
> 
> So, how can you implement this maxim with computer programs?  i.e. How
> are  you  going  to  represent  these  concepts in  a  computer  in  a
> relatively neutral manner?  Should the computer represent "I'm hungry"
> as "I AM hungry" or "I HAVE hunger", or neither (e.g. "I --> <state of
> being hungry>")?
> 
> If you've been following this thread, you should get what I mean.
> 
> 
> -- 
> Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                   
~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
>
.---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-.
> | http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail:
sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
>
`---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-'
> 

On Thu, 27 May 1999 12:52:29 +0200, Boyd Buchin
<boyd@informatik.unibw-muenchen.de> skribis:

>Yan King Yin's wrote:
>>                    my idea is to remove the "semantic"
>> part of this problem so that the remaining task for the
>> computer is reduced to syntax / transliteration aspects,
>> things that computers do well.  
>
>Is this possible?

Hi Boyd. I'm working on a project for that, so I think it's possible.
It's called UTL and will have a proper web-page soon.

>First of all you will obviously need disambiguation (i.e. for words and
>syntactic structures that can be interpreted in two ways you have to
>state which interpretation is intended) for this to work. Let's suppose
>this is possible for the fragment of speech and the languages you have
>in mind (e.g. mathematical texts, technical manuals or law texts and the
>languages English, French and German).

I think it'll be possible for much more, though translation quality
won't be such as that of a human translator. But serious errors will
be rather unusual. Post-editing will be necessary if target text
requires it, but anyway it will be minimum.

>But even then there are simple examples where a purely syntactic
>approach has to fail, even between relatively similar languages like
>English and German. In these two languages the most salient examples for
>this are negation and the generic use of articles. A universal language

I think you're talking here about a "generation" problem. I would like
you to give an example if not.



Saludos,
Marcos

>>>>> "John" == John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:

    John> The problem seems not to arise in pictographic
    John> communication. Using colour, lines, shading or any visual
    John> effect, you can even indicate 'that part of the palm within
    John> 2 cm of the base of the index finger', for which, AFAIK,
    John> there is no single word in any language.

Do you think these parameters, namely colour and shading, are suitable
for  pictographic communication?   Have  you consider  how easy  human
beings can draw the pictographs?   How easy can computers receive such
pictographs from  a *noisy* channel,  where the subtle  differences in
colour and shading may be distorted?



-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

>>>>> "Stefan" == Stefan MUEHLBACHER <SMuehlba@frequentis.com> writes:


    Stefan> 1.) State of being hungry: So we need a symbol for a
    Stefan> relation that can be used together with one operand: Lets
    Stefan> call it SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY

    Stefan> 2.) The other symbol is needed for the person that is in
    Stefan> that state: Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON.

    Stefan> And the relation may be represented like:
    Stefan> SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY (SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON).

    Stefan> The two sentences "I am hungry" or "I have hunger" are
    Stefan> just two ways to translate the same relation into english.

You're  applying the  model of  predicate  logic here.   You may  find
Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/) interesting.


In lojban,

	mi = I
	xagji = hungry/need food

mi xagji = I'm hungry = J'ai faim = Ich habe hunger = <wo3> <e4>



-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

fon sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~})  :

>So, when I encounter an  unknown character (e.g.  those created by the
>Japanese themselves) having  this structure, I can know  it's the name
>of  a kind  fish.  I  don't even  need to  know how  the  character is
>pronounced.  (Some  of these fish-name characters are  invented by the
>Japanese,  and  hence  have  no  Chinese pronunciation,  and  I  ain't
>interested in knowing how it  is pronounced in Japanese.)  I know it's
>a fish and that often suffices.

imagine you have to spell it out in a radio broadcast or you reading
loud something for an audience . wouldn't it be embarrassing if 
you don't know how to pronounce the character . you have to tell something
to the people , you hardly can't omit the word . 

i heard japanese invented an electronic gadget for something but i'm not sure . 



>    Stefan> But when we use a good resolution then its very hard to
>    Stefan> write down a symbol, you have to define pixel by pixel in
>    Stefan> an image editor.  

>It's silly to do it pixel by pixel.

>Nowadays,  professional  computer  typesetting  do not  represent  the
>printouts pixel  by pixel (how many pixel  are there on an  A4 page at
>2400dpi?  Astronomical figure!).  Instead, the printout is *described*
>in terms  of high-level componnents: lines,  circles, B-spline curves,
>and  characters.   (But characters  in  quality  fonts are  themselved
>defined in ters of lines and  curves.)  This not only reduces the data
>volume, but also makes the description resolution/device independent.

>I can't see any advantage  in defining pictograms pixel by pixel.  Why
>not give the shapes of them precise mathematical definitions, in terms
>of parameterized lines and curves?  

>Chinese characters are basically defined in terms of stroke shapes and
>their *relative* position and  intersection with one another.  This is
>practical and efficient.  Pixel by pixel definition is impractical and
>silly.




>    Stefan> It is also hard to tell, if a pictogram
>    Stefan> is the original pictogram or if there are just a few pixel
>    Stefan> different.  

>That's why pixel-based definition fails.  Why not define pictograms by
>high-level  components, which  are  more natural  to  human beings  to
>understand?  Define them in terms of lines and curves!


>    Stefan> My theory for this is: at the end it turns out, that each
>    Stefan> language can describe the same knowledge, the same
>    Stefan> facts. But there is a different way to look at the same
>    Stefan> thing:

>That's a "very very different" way.


>    Stefan> For example: Let us assume languageA knows only a symbol
>    Stefan> for the circumference of a circle, not the radius.
>    Stefan> LanguageB knows only a symbol for the radius of a circle,
>    Stefan> not for the circumference.

>    Stefan> Now both languages can define a circle. They can also
>    Stefan> define the same circle.  But a translator cannot translate
>    Stefan> the size of the circle unless he knows the relation:
>    Stefan> circumference = 2*r*PI

>Another  example: How is  French "j'ai  faim" represented?   Would the
>representation lead to the English translation "I have hunger" instead
>of the more natural "I'm hungry"?











>-- 
>Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
>.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
>| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
>`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

------------------------------------------
e#o$anqo xiuyawde = e^ho^san^go ^ciu^ja�de
NeNaDNePReNePeReU 

<7femk1v6fu.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>, Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
<sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk> inimitably wrote:
>Do you think these parameters, namely colour and shading, are suitable
>for  pictographic communication?   Have  you consider  how easy  human
>beings can draw the pictographs?   How easy can computers receive such
>pictographs from  a *noisy* channel,  where the subtle  differences in
>colour and shading may be distorted?

I don't expect humans to draw them - computers are much better at that
than most humans. It seems to me that the effect of noisy channels is
applicable to absolutely any form of communication, and is therefore
beside this particular point.

In the novel I cited - 'Eon', by Greg Bear, pictograms are used even for
face-to-face communication, instead of speech. Obviously, this pre-
supposes the availability of sufficient computing power in a suitable-
sized package.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

>echt , in wos fia aan beziak . wiasou xiach i di nia in juusnet
>oda in alt.culture.austrian .

Tjo, laida knopp au�ahoib olla beziake, in Brunn.
Sogamoi klingt des stairisch wos du do palavast oda daischimi.
Vilaicht soilt i amoi wo ondas a voabeischaun.

>is broblem mit de estdaraicha do in alt.language.artificial
>is das sas nijt laung do aushoidn - aussa mia nadialich .

Wia laung hostas schou ausghoitn do?


Pfiati, S. M�hlbacher


Nenad Aliix schrieb in Nachricht <7i1982$1n5c$11@www.univie.ac.at>...
>fon "Stefan MUEHLBACHER" <SMuehlba@frequentis.com>  :
>
>>The advantage of this would be: nobody has to learn a new language, the
>>translation into a natural language is just a matter of symbol mapping and
>>syntax.
>
>do muis i da recht gejm .
>sowos zn mochn is owa drozdejm a haidn oawat .
>
>>Stefan Muehlbacher, Vienna
>>Private: e&s@kabsi.at
>
>echt , in wos fia aan beziak . wiasou xiach i di nia in juusnet
>oda in alt.culture.austrian .
>
>is broblem mit de estdaraicha do in alt.language.artificial
>is das sas nijt laung do aushoidn - aussa mia nadialich .
>
>
>------------------------------------------
>e#o$anqo xiuyawde = e^ho^san^go ^ciu^ja�de
>NeNaDNePReNePeReU
>

>>>>> "Nenad" == Nenad Aliix <nenad.aliicx@gmx.li> writes:

    Nenad> imagine you have to spell it out in a radio broadcast or
    Nenad> you reading loud something for an audience . wouldn't it be
    Nenad> embarrassing if you don't know how to pronounce the
    Nenad> character . you have to tell something to the people , you
    Nenad> hardly can't omit the word .

If itd  is were a  scheduled talk, I'll  do the preparation  well.  An
important of the preparation is to ensure that I know how to pronounce
every character I'm going to use, especially proper names.

It is  generally quite embarrasing  to mispronounce one's  name.  This
occurs  occasionally  in TV  game  programmes,  where  the hosts  draw
letters from a poll of letters  sent from audience, so as to determine
who is lucky  enough to receive grand prizes.  When  the hosts have to
announce the prize recipient and  the recipient happens to have a rare
character for  his surname,  oops!  What can  the hosts do?   The most
acceptable strategy,  IMHO, is  for the hosts  to apologize  for their
ignorance and admit that they don't know how to pronounce the surname.
They would then give a description of the shape of that character.



    Nenad> i heard japanese invented an electronic gadget for
    Nenad> something but i'm not sure .

Really?  I'm interested.






-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

>>>>> "John" == John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:

    John> I don't expect humans to draw them - computers are much
    John> better at that than most humans. It seems to me that the
    John> effect of noisy channels is applicable to absolutely any
    John> form of communication, and is therefore beside this
    John> particular point.

That  still  doesn't  justify  using  pixel-based  definition  of  the
pictograms instead of  high-level, curve-line based, structure-related
definition.



-- 
Lee Sau Dan                     $(0,X)wAV(B(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ) 
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'

Nenad Aliix wrote in message <7im52j$3h1q$10@www.univie.ac.at>...

>i heard japanese invented an electronic gadget for something but i'm not
sure .


Isn't that what they do?

fon sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk (Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~})  :

>mi xagji = I'm hungry = J'ai faim = Ich habe hunger = <wo3> <e4>

that's " Ich habe Hunger" or "Ich bin hungrig . " in german . 


------------------------------------------
e#o$anqo xiuyawde = e^ho^san^go ^ciu^ja�de
NeNaDNePReNePeReU 

fon "Stefan M�hlbacher" <e&s@kabsi.at>  :

>Tjo, laida knopp au�ahoib olla beziake, in Brunn.
na imahi in estdaraich 

>Sogamoi klingt des stairisch wos du do palavast oda daischimi.

suiz aigntli net sai owa kau schu sai das i fo maina mut wos 
iwanouma hob ; in frijtbeagk in da schtaiamoagk is nejmli
aufgwoxn ; 

>Vilaicht soilt i amoi wo ondas a voabeischaun.
daat i da roudn ; wia waas mit alt.culture.austrian owa
do is nia wos loos 

>Wia laung hostas schou ausghoitn do?

a boa jaaln mit de gaunzn ejlij'ens ; 
glaubst net wia aan des hea nimt ; 
iagantwaun daun amoi in da wochn riafn di daun di 
fawaundn au , in heara hebst o unt soxt " s-ro 
aliix ; a - vi estas panjo - xu vi povas diri al mi mallonge
pri kiu vi min vokis ? ... "

pfiatdi ! 

To All a.l.a Readers who are interested ; 
we two are speaking a seldom spoken Austronesian Language 
because we two are real Aborigines from ..... 

------------------------------------------
e#o$anqo xiuyawde = e^ho^san^go ^ciu^ja�de
NeNaDNePReNePeReU 

<7f3e0gv4w3.fsf@faith.csis.hku.hk>, Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}
<sdlee@faith.csis.hku.hk> inimitably wrote:
>That  still  doesn't  justify  using  pixel-based  definition  of  the
>pictograms instead of  high-level, curve-line based, structure-related
>definition.
I didn't say it did. It was someone else who proposed pixel-level
comparison, and I agree that it is not a practicable proposition. 
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

Marcos wrote:
> >But even then there are simple examples where a purely syntactic
> >approach has to fail, even between relatively similar languages like
> >English and German. In these two languages the most salient examples for
> >this are negation and the generic use of articles. A universal language
> 
> I think you're talking here about a "generation" problem. I would like
> you to give an example if not.

Here are some examples, where a syntactic approach would fail: 

   Peter does _not_ see Mary.
 = Peter sieht Maria _nicht_.

   Peter does _not_ see many guests.
/= Peter sieht viele G�ste _nicht_.

The correct translation would be:

   Peter sieht _nicht_ viele G�ste.

Compare this to the passive of the English sentence:

   _not_ many guests are seen by Peter.

Another example:

   Er kaufte _kein_ Salz.
   He did _not_ buy _any_ salt.

   r und p definieren _kein_ Dreieck.
/= r and p do _not_ define _any_ triangle.

If the negation formalism of your formal language copies the German or
the English formalism, you get wrong results in the other language. A
logical approach, on the other hand, is to limited, as logic only knows
sentence negation. It thus is far less a generation problem than a
question of how to formalise negation.

Boyd

-- 
Boyd Buchin                - Fakult�t f�r Informatik
Universit�t der Bundeswehr - 85577 Neubiberg, Germany
http://inf1-www.informatik.unibw-muenchen.de/Boyd

In article <01bea8ef$3ca8fb30$54c011ac@ws6147>,
Stefan MUEHLBACHER <SMuehlba@frequentis.com> wrote:
>> So, how can you implement this maxim with computer programs?  i.e. How
>> are  you  going  to  represent  these  concepts in  a  computer  in  a
>> relatively neutral manner?  Should the computer represent "I'm hungry"
>> as "I AM hungry" or "I HAVE hunger", or neither (e.g. "I --> <state of
>> being hungry>")?
>
>of For me it is clear that the neutral manner to represent this sentence
>consists
>of two global symbols (it does not matter if those symbols consist of
>letters or
>are just pictograms).
>
>1.) State of being hungry: So we need a symbol for a relation that can be
>used together with one operand: Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY
>
>2.) The other symbol is needed for the person that is in that state:
>Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON.
>
>And the relation may be represented like:
>SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY (SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON).
>
>The two sentences "I am hungry" or "I have hunger" are just two ways to
>translate the same relation into english.

Doesn't quite work, I'm afraid.  

Presumably you'll postulate a similar SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_TIRED?

Unfortunately, although the sentence "I am tired and hungry" works
well in English with a single verb and compound adjective, there is
no (structural) equivalent in French (due to the different verbs.

As was pointed out a little bit further downthread, you're using a
fairly simple first order predicate logic here(*).  Let me switch into
Prolog notation for brevity....

The problem is that we need some way to get from

is_tired(person).
	and
is_hungry(person).
	to 

is_tired_and_hungry(person).

to capture the English structure.  And it's difficult if not impossible
to come up with a universalizable and computational rule to state when
you can create new predictates like this on the fly (and when you can't):

	x (A), y (A) -> x_and_y (A)

So the next step would be to break the problem down further; to noted
that hunger and tiredness are themselves both atomic properties, to
note that

has_property(person,tired).
has_property(person,hungry).

And that these can be conflated to a property list

has_property(person,[tired,hungry]).

This can capture both the English and French syntax but at the
cost of another level of abstraction in the representation.  These
representational levels unfortunately add up; unless you're a great
deal cleverer than I, you'll probably find yourself afloat in a
sea of abstract properties trying to rationalize to yourself 
what property lamps have that no other objects in the world (including
flashlights and campfires) have, because it's necessary to find such
a distinguishing property in order to capture the syntax of
Chinese classifiers. 

	-kitten


(*) 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).

	-kitten

Patrick Juola schrieb in Nachricht <7iu7i3$pl0$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>...
>In article <01bea8ef$3ca8fb30$54c011ac@ws6147>,
>Stefan MUEHLBACHER <SMuehlba@frequentis.com> wrote:
>>> So, how can you implement this maxim with computer programs?  i.e. How
>>> are  you  going  to  represent  these  concepts in  a  computer  in  a
>>> relatively neutral manner?  Should the computer represent "I'm hungry"
>>> as "I AM hungry" or "I HAVE hunger", or neither (e.g. "I --> <state of
>>> being hungry>")?
>>
>>of For me it is clear that the neutral manner to represent this sentence
>>consists
>>of two global symbols (it does not matter if those symbols consist of
>>letters or
>>are just pictograms).
>>
>>1.) State of being hungry: So we need a symbol for a relation that can be
>>used together with one operand: Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY
>>
>>2.) The other symbol is needed for the person that is in that state:
>>Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON.
>>
>>And the relation may be represented like:
>>SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY (SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON).
>>
>>The two sentences "I am hungry" or "I have hunger" are just two ways to
>>translate the same relation into english.
>
>Doesn't quite work, I'm afraid.
>
>Presumably you'll postulate a similar SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_TIRED?
>

You are right, I would postulate this.

>Unfortunately, although the sentence "I am tired and hungry" works
>well in English with a single verb and compound adjective, there is
>no (structural) equivalent in French (due to the different verbs.
>
>As was pointed out a little bit further downthread, you're using a
>fairly simple first order predicate logic here(*).  Let me switch into
>Prolog notation for brevity....
>
>The problem is that we need some way to get from
>
>is_tired(person).
> and
>is_hungry(person).
> to
>
>is_tired_and_hungry(person).
>

There is a base principle for the abstract representation of knowledge with
global symbols:
In this model there are two distinct domains:
- One is the knowledge representation domain (this is not the communication
form, it is just used to store knowledge).
- One is a natural language (similar) domain where syntax will be regarded
(used to tell knowledge to a human).

In the knowledge representation domain it is normally not a good idea to use
many predicates in a single expression: So in this domain it would not
represent
the knowledge as 'is_tired_and_hungry(person)'.
It is better to represent the knowledge just as two independent pieces:
is_tired(person), is_hungry(person).
In this domain there is no need to merge the two pieces!

So the sentence: "I am tired and hungry" is just an abbreviation in the
syntactical domain.
This abbreviation will not be available for all languages. It need not be
available, because omitting the abbreviation
does not prevent anybody from telling the same knowledge in a longer form.

In my opinion in this case the problem is just a language dependent
syntactical problem, but not
a knowledge representation problem.

>to capture the English structure.  And it's difficult if not impossible
>to come up with a universalizable and computational rule to state when
>you can create new predictates like this on the fly (and when you can't):
>
> x (A), y (A) -> x_and_y (A)
>


You are right, rules like that are language dependent.

>So the next step would be to break the problem down further; to noted
>that hunger and tiredness are themselves both atomic properties, to
>note that
>
>has_property(person,tired).
>has_property(person,hungry).
>
>And that these can be conflated to a property list
>
>has_property(person,[tired,hungry]).
>
>This can capture both the English and French syntax but at the
>cost of another level of abstraction in the representation.  These
>representational levels unfortunately add up; unless you're a great
>deal cleverer than I, you'll probably find yourself afloat in a
>sea of abstract properties trying to rationalize to yourself
>what property lamps have that no other objects in the world (including
>flashlights and campfires) have, because it's necessary to find such
>a distinguishing property in order to capture the syntax of
>Chinese classifiers.



This is a bit like to say: It is true that it is true that it is true that
paris is the capital of france.
I see no reason to need that in the knowledge representation domain.

regards, Stefan Muehlbacher




> -kitten
>
>
>(*) 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.

But nevertheless it is just a convention to be chosen.

> -kitten

mike_adams61@hotmail.com wrote:
> [..] Why not have the middle lingo be one of visual means..
> [..]
> Did you go to the store?
> picture of you, picture of store, question mark.
> [..]
> Mike Adams

Hey, this is cool!!  I support this idea to be used in the
new language,  but Im not sure how much agreement can be
achieved.

1) I just realized that, the problem of assigning "words" to
"things" is, mathematically, like trying to partition a space.
"speech" + "picture" = 2 dimensions.
Romance languages use sound exclusively.  The relation
between sound and meaning is almost arbitrary.  So, is it
possible to merge a pictorial lang with a sound lang?

2) in order to solve the "lexicon" problem,  some "standard"
language must be used to talk about the words.  That means
existing languages.  This creates trouble -- which language
is the standard reference??  But the pictorial approach
avoids this problem by using a "building" process, sort of
like children's learning.  I think this is cool.  For
example, pictures can be up-loaded to web-sites for other
users to down-load.

Im writing a more detailed post now.  Your idea is great.
Thanks John Woodgate for quoting the Sci-Fi source also.
- Yan King Yin


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:

>I see a difference between 'pictographic' and 'symbolic'. What I mean by
>the former is quasi-realistic representation of objects etc., as in a
>strip-cartoon, whereas 'symbolic' implies a stylization, as you see on
>the controls of a car or icons on a computer display.

That is not the difference.  A pictogram means what it shows, a symbol
means something else.  A picture of a fish, however stylized, meaning
"fish sold here" is a pictogram.  A picture of a fish, however realistic,
meaning "I am a Christian" is a symbol.

Klaus O K

On Mon, 31 May 1999 11:42:06 +0200, Boyd Buchin
<boyd@informatik.unibw-muenchen.de> skribis:

[...]
>Another example:
>
>   Er kaufte _kein_ Salz.
>   He did _not_ buy _any_ salt.
>
>   r und p definieren _kein_ Dreieck.
>/= r and p do _not_ define _any_ triangle.
>
>If the negation formalism of your formal language copies the German or
>the English formalism, you get wrong results in the other language. A
>logical approach, on the other hand, is to limited, as logic only knows
>sentence negation. It thus is far less a generation problem than a
>question of how to formalise negation.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but as I see it, it's up to the generator to decide
what's the correct way to express negation on a given syntactic
structure in natural language X. If the generator is well programmed
(and is not a simple glosser), it should make it right. 



Saludos,
Marcos

<7j05eb$rml@ask.diku.dk>, Klaus Ole Kristiansen <klaus@diku.dk>
inimitably wrote:
>John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>I see a difference between 'pictographic' and 'symbolic'. What I mean by
>>the former is quasi-realistic representation of objects etc., as in a
>>strip-cartoon, whereas 'symbolic' implies a stylization, as you see on
>>the controls of a car or icons on a computer display.
>
>That is not the difference.  A pictogram means what it shows, a symbol
>means something else.  A picture of a fish, however stylized, meaning
>"fish sold here" is a pictogram.  A picture of a fish, however realistic,
>meaning "I am a Christian" is a symbol.
>
>Klaus O K

But there is a complete continuum between a photograph - a painting - a
cartoon - a hieroglyph - a modern Chinese character. At what degree of
stylization does something change from being a pictogram to a symbol.
-- 
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
Phone +44 (0)1268 747839 Fax +44 (0)1268 777124.
Did you hear about the hungry genetic engineer who made a pig of himself?

In article <37530426.0@news.kabsi.at>, Stefan M�hlbacher <e&s@kabsi.at> wrote:
>
>Patrick Juola schrieb in Nachricht <7iu7i3$pl0$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>...
>>In article <01bea8ef$3ca8fb30$54c011ac@ws6147>,
>>Stefan MUEHLBACHER <SMuehlba@frequentis.com> wrote:
>>>> So, how can you implement this maxim with computer programs?  i.e. How
>>>> are  you  going  to  represent  these  concepts in  a  computer  in  a
>>>> relatively neutral manner?  Should the computer represent "I'm hungry"
>>>> as "I AM hungry" or "I HAVE hunger", or neither (e.g. "I --> <state of
>>>> being hungry>")?
>>>
>>>of For me it is clear that the neutral manner to represent this sentence
>>>consists
>>>of two global symbols (it does not matter if those symbols consist of
>>>letters or
>>>are just pictograms).
>>>
>>>1.) State of being hungry: So we need a symbol for a relation that can be
>>>used together with one operand: Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY
>>>
>>>2.) The other symbol is needed for the person that is in that state:
>>>Lets call it SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON.
>>>
>>>And the relation may be represented like:
>>>SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_HUNGRY (SYMBOL_FOR_PERSON).
>>>
>>>The two sentences "I am hungry" or "I have hunger" are just two ways to
>>>translate the same relation into english.
>>
>>Doesn't quite work, I'm afraid.
>>
>>Presumably you'll postulate a similar SYMBOL_FOR_BEING_TIRED?
>>
>
>You are right, I would postulate this.
>
>>Unfortunately, although the sentence "I am tired and hungry" works
>>well in English with a single verb and compound adjective, there is
>>no (structural) equivalent in French (due to the different verbs.
>>
>>As was pointed out a little bit further downthread, you're using a
>>fairly simple first order predicate logic here(*).  Let me switch into
>>Prolog notation for brevity....
>>
>>The problem is that we need some way to get from
>>
>>is_tired(person).
>> and
>>is_hungry(person).
>> to
>>
>>is_tired_and_hungry(person).
>>
>
>There is a base principle for the abstract representation of knowledge with
>global symbols:
>In this model there are two distinct domains:
>- One is the knowledge representation domain (this is not the communication
>form, it is just used to store knowledge).
>- One is a natural language (similar) domain where syntax will be regarded
>(used to tell knowledge to a human).
>
>In the knowledge representation domain it is normally not a good idea to use
>many predicates in a single expression: So in this domain it would not
>represent
>the knowledge as 'is_tired_and_hungry(person)'.
>It is better to represent the knowledge just as two independent pieces:
>is_tired(person), is_hungry(person).
>In this domain there is no need to merge the two pieces!

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.

>You are right, rules like that are language dependent.
>
>>So the next step would be to break the problem down further; to noted
>>that hunger and tiredness are themselves both atomic properties, to
>>note that
>>
>>has_property(person,tired).
>>has_property(person,hungry).
>>
>>And that these can be conflated to a property list
>>
>>has_property(person,[tired,hungry]).
>>
>>This can capture both the English and French syntax but at the
>>cost of another level of abstraction in the representation.  These
>>representational levels unfortunately add up; unless you're a great
>>deal cleverer than I, you'll probably find yourself afloat in a
>>sea of abstract properties trying to rationalize to yourself
>>what property lamps have that no other objects in the world (including
>>flashlights and campfires) have, because it's necessary to find such
>>a distinguishing property in order to capture the syntax of
>>Chinese classifiers.
>
>
>
>This is a bit like to say: It is true that it is true that it is true that
>paris is the capital of france.

>I see no reason to need that in the knowledge representation domain.

You will when you look far enough.....  That's *THE* fundamental problem
with this approach to KR/MT.

	-kitten

>>
>>(*) 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.

	-kitten

John Woodgate wrote in message ...
><7j05eb$rml@ask.diku.dk>, Klaus Ole Kristiansen <klaus@diku.dk>
>inimitably wrote:
>>John Woodgate <jmw@jmwa.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>
>>>I see a difference between 'pictographic' and 'symbolic'. What I mean by
>>>the former is quasi-realistic representation of objects etc., as in a
>>>strip-cartoon, whereas 'symbolic' implies a stylization, as you see on
>>>the controls of a car or icons on a computer display.
>>
>>That is not the difference.  A pictogram means what it shows, a symbol
>>means something else.  A picture of a fish, however stylized, meaning
>>"fish sold here" is a pictogram.  A picture of a fish, however realistic,
>>meaning "I am a Christian" is a symbol.
>>
>>Klaus O K
>
>But there is a complete continuum between a photograph - a painting - a
>cartoon - a hieroglyph - a modern Chinese character. At what degree of
>stylization does something change from being a pictogram to a symbol.


When it is not recognisable in any reasonable way as the concept it
represents.

Show me a picture of a fish that says unambiguously 'christian'.

Egyptian hieroglyphics were either used for their phonetoic value, or as
true pictograms, making taht a mixed system. Even the ancestors of hanzi
bore little resemblance for the more esoteric concepts. Those that are
recognisable today were so then, and likelwise for those that aren't. As for
cartoons and photos, their status as pictogram or symbol depends on teh
meaning the viewer chooses to assign.

---
Fabian
Rule One: Question the unquestionable,
ask the unaskable, eff the ineffable,
think the unthinkable, and screw the inscrutable.

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.

> >>(*) 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.

So it is much more practically to define mandatory or optional relation
parts based
on "is_tired" than based on "person" or "today".

S. Muehlbacher


> 	-kitten
> 
> 

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

Patrick Juola <juola@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote in article
<7jlotk$c0f$1@quine.mathcs.duq.edu>...
> 
> 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.
> 

I think I understand your point. But the existence of the human knowledge
proofs that there must be a way out of this dilemma.
Currently I am constructing a piece of software to be used for knowledge
representation and I had the same problem you mention in the start-up
process.
The problem appears more and more as the abstraction process goes on and 
metaknowledge is introduced. 
Sometimes I needed a knowledge unit that could not be introduced, because
it depended on knowledge unit B and vice versa. So there were several hen -
egg problems.

I think there is a way to solve problems like that (I did it practically
for the software):

Metaknowledge cannot be introduced in an independent way. When a system has
metaknowledge then the information is present twice: First as the fact
itself and second as the knowledge on a higher level that the fact exists.
It is possible to introduce the fact itself (on a deeper unconscious level)
without being forced to introduce the metaknowledge at the same time. Later
we are able to add the metaknowledge as a retrievable information on a
higher level.

 
> >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."
> 

I will do that. But I am not shure if you interpreted the issue the way I
did. To be shure I try to make it more clear: You speak about a hundred
individual and mostly orthogonal verb "relation parts."
I did not mean there are few "relation parts" generally for verbs. I agree,
there are many.
I just said there are few "relation parts" for the (semantic, not
syntactic) verb "is_tired". Maybe we can find more relation parts even for
that verb, but the main message can be expressed by not more than three or
four parts plus the verb "is_tired" itself.

Stefan M�hlbacher


> 	-kitten
> 

In article <01beb37e$e6e410f0$a0c010ac@ws7966>,
Stefan MUEHLBACHER <SMuehlba@frequentis.com> wrote:
>Patrick Juola <juola@mathcs.duq.edu> wrote :
>> 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.
>
>I think I understand your point. But the existence of the human knowledge
>proofs that there must be a way out of this dilemma.

Proves, not proofs, Mr. Muehlbacher.  Yes, it does.  But it *doesn't*
disprove the claim that the way out of the dilemma is to, for example,
abandon the symbolic manipulation of some sort of 'primitive' altogether.
A theologically-inclined Cartesian dualist might claim that human
knowledge only exists by virtue of ineffable angel-like sprites in our
heads and souls and that no mechanistic technique could possibly
address the complexities of language.  A Penrosian would replace
'angel-like sprites' with 'quantum microtubules' and say the same thing.
And a strong connectionist would suggest that the solution lies in
patterns and similarity relationships which are themselves irreducible
to symbolic patterns.

>I think there is a way to solve problems like that (I did it practically
>for the software):
>
>Metaknowledge cannot be introduced in an independent way. When a system has
>metaknowledge then the information is present twice: First as the fact
>itself and second as the knowledge on a higher level that the fact exists.
>It is possible to introduce the fact itself (on a deeper unconscious level)
>without being forced to introduce the metaknowledge at the same time. Later
>we are able to add the metaknowledge as a retrievable information on a
>higher level.

The question is whether you've exhausted the *space* of meta-knowledge
in your framework... and whether the framework is itself tractable.  In
general, the answer to those questions is 'no' for any systems with
which I'm familiar.

>> >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."
>
>I will do that. But I am not shure if you interpreted the issue the way I
>did. To be shure I try to make it more clear: You speak about a hundred
>individual and mostly orthogonal verb "relation parts."
>I did not mean there are few "relation parts" generally for verbs. I agree,
>there are many.
>I just said there are few "relation parts" for the (semantic, not
>syntactic) verb "is_tired". Maybe we can find more relation parts even for
>that verb, but the main message can be expressed by not more than three or
>four parts plus the verb "is_tired" itself.

Except that it can't, I'm afraid.   Again the mandatory reference to
BPP -- some aspects of the main message you may not have realized :

i) Information status :  Do you know of your own senses that person
is_tired, are you inferring it from other information you have, have
you been told this, or is this 'common knowledge'?  This distinction
can be linguistically salient.  

ii) Habituality : Is this person merely tired now, or is this person
often tired, or is tired part of his state of being?

iii) Reality : Does the situation of this person being tired actually
hold, or is this an unreal situation (hypothetical, future, planned-for), &c?

iv) Necessity : Is this tiredness *NECESSARY* in all possible worlds, or
does it only hold true in some circumstances?  

... and so forth.

In English, most of these are expressed in varying auxilliary verbs; there's
a difference between/among.

I am tired
I think I'm tired.
I might be tired.
I must be tired.
I can't be tired.
I will be tired [at a time].
I will be tired [if something happens].
I tire [easily].

But, well, this exhaustive list of examples tires me. 8-)

	-kitten