I'm not sure about Lojban, but though Loglan was syntactically well formed, it wasn't semantically well specified. Not even in the original books, and I presume that with the acquisition of users it became less well specified. E.g.: What is the definition of stream? Is is a body of water that flows? Would you use it to discuss streaming media? Etc.
I.e., the syntax does not determine the semantics, and the work was done on creating tight syntax. (Outside of logical connectives, that is. Logical connectives were well described and determined.) OTOH, since the object is to train an intelligent program, perhaps the presence of ambiguity is a plus... Ben Goertzel wrote: > ... > I had the idea once to teach an AI system in Lojban, and then let > random Lojban speakers over the Web interact with it to teach it. > This might work, because the barrier to entry is so high. Anyone who > has bothered to learn Lojban is probably a serious nerd and wouldn't > feel like filling the AI's mind with a bunch of junk. Of course, I > haven't bothered to learn Lojban well yet, though ;-( ... > > -- Ben > > ... I ------- To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
