I think you are mis-interpreting me. I do *not* subscribe to the semantic primitives (I probably didn't put it clearly though). Just trying to answer your question re the sufficiency of 10 or so verbs. However, if you are considering any reduced vocabulary then you should be familiar with the literature/theories and *also* know why it failed. I think other people also mentioned that list readers should check old discredited approaches first and then see how your current approach is different/better. Jean-Paul
>>> "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 06/05/07 7:14 PM >>> Thanks. But Schank has fallen into disuse, no? The ideas re script algorithms just don't work, do they? And what I was highlighting was one possible reason - those primitives are infinitely open-ended and can be, and are, repeatedly being used in new ways. That supposedly minimally ambiguous language looks, ironically, like it's maximally ambiguous. I agree that the primitives you list are extremely important - arguably central - in the development of human language. But to my mind, and I'll have to argue this at length, and elsewhere, they show something that you might not like - the impossibility of programming (in any conventional sense) a mind to handle them. ----- Original Message ----- From: Jean-Paul Van Belle To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 5:44 PM Subject: Re: [agi] Minimally ambiguous languages Hi Mike Just Google 'Ogden' and/or Basic English - there's lots of info. And if you doubt that only a few verbs are sufficient, then obviously you need to do some reading: anyone interested in building AGI should be familiar with Schank's (1975) contextual dependency theory "which deals with the representation of meaning in sentences. Building upon this framework, Schank & Abelson (1977) introduced the concepts of scripts, plans and themes to handle story-level understanding. Later work (e.g., Schank, 1982,1986) elaborated the theory to encompass other aspects of cognition." [http://tip.psychology.org/schank.html] A number of other researchers have also worked on the concept of a few semantic primitives (one called them semantic primes) but I'd be a bad teacher if I did *your* homework for you... ;-) Jean-Paul Department of Information Systems Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: (+27)-(0)21-6504256 Fax: (+27)-(0)21-6502280 Office: Leslie Commerce 4.21 >>> "Mike Tintner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2007/06/05 16:48:32 >>> Except that Ogden only included a very few verbs [be , have , come - go , put - take , give - get , make , keep , let , do , say , see , send , cause and because are occasionally used as operators; seem was later added.] So in practice people use about 60 of the nouns as verbs diminishing the 'unambiguity' somewhat. Also most words are seriously polysemous. But it is a very good/interesting starting point! = Jean-Paul How does that work? The first 12 verbs above are among the most general, infinitely-meaningful and therefore ambiguous words in the language. There are an infinity of ways to "come" or "go" to a place. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.9/832 - Release Date: 04/06/2007 18:43 ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
