🚀 go-pugleaf

Pautler Says:

>BTW, your choice of 'slots' seems pretty arbitrary to me -- maintaining
>a distinction between WHO's and WHAT's at this level seems unimportant
>compared to the loss of information due to collapsing all actors, recipients,
>patients, etc. to WHO's and all causes, intentions, etc. to WHY's.

>	-dp-

I will try to explain WHY we choose to start a new taxonomy from those six
items. The reason is so simple that it is difficult to make it sound worth
a scientifical research. If you think of what can be asked about any situation
that is possible to describe with language, you will find out that you have
to use one of the wh-words, among those the following six seem to be the most
essential: WHO, WHAT, WHY, HOW, WHERE, and WHEN. We are ignoring the yes/no
questions as you surely noticed.

The power of this taxonomy (to be developed, of course) is in its intuitive
power. There is no problem explaining somebody how to recognize a WHO, a WHAT
and so on. The biggest problem is to convince people trying to approach the
language from a perspective (apparently) so down to earth.

Think about it a little,

Thanks a lot
Paolo.