Dear Ada, I think I am agreeing with you in terms of finding the right labels for the scientific units of reference. I have always wondered why computational linguists have not just simply called these units "strings".
Kind regards, Hugh On Wed, Aug 2, 2023 at 11:12 AM Ada Wan via Corpora <[email protected]> wrote: > Re RML or any "text technologies" leveraging "grammar" (misnomer or not): > it is not the right time right now to be "campy" about (as in, to be > arguing/protesting for) "grammar", at the moment, esp. if you do not have a > background in Linguistics. > There has been quite some abuse/misconduct with concepts/units/assumptions > such as "words", "sentences", and "grammar" in the language space (with or > without computational implementation). > > The priority of my communications here is to clarify the part on the > scientific front, to make sure that if one happens to have gotten oneself > involved in this space, how one can come to more clarity on the status quo, > esp. given my results. There is a lot that needs to be re-evaluated and > re-interpreted. Simply stating that something might have been useful in the > past is not going to be helpful with going forward. > > If one is working in technologies with language/text data (e.g., in a > user-based format/framework, and not working on "grammar" as a > "linguistic"/philological pursuit), it is recommended that the name(s) of > such technologies get updated --- if "grammar" [1] does not have to be > mentioned or be involved, don't. > [1] or, including but not limited to any of the following: "word", > "sentence", "linguistic structure(s)", "meaning", "morphology", "syntax", > "parsing", various terms related to parts of speech (e.g. "nouns", > "verbs").... > > Re "BTW, regarding that "parsing" aspect, what is the term used to > describe the gradual process of "terminological inception"?": > conceptualization? Coining of terms? > According to me, "lexical priming" is different from "terminological > inception". > > Re "How could you clarified intersubjectivity?": > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity :) > Your question is way too broad, or requires an answer that is such, which > I cannot entertain at the moment. > > Thanks for sharing your perspectives. I must admit I have not had time to > digest all of your points. But this impression recurred in me as I was > reading them: > sometimes, I sense that when one claims some concepts are not universal > (e.g. the ones mentioned in [1] above), others take it as that all concepts > are categorically invalid. That is not what I intended to communicate (with > all my papers, scientific work, and my comments here). It is an expert > opinion/finding that I shared, upon some careful evaluation. > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:26 PM Albretch Mueller via Corpora < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On 7/31/23, Ada Wan <[email protected]> wrote: >> > That having been expressed, here are a couple of points re RML that one >> should pay heed: >> > i. to what extent and in what context is this a technology relevant? >> >> If you were able to device an algorithm which taking as input only NL >> texts (composed of: 1) a start (semantic end); b) a sequence of >> characters from a relatively large and representative text bank; c) an >> end (a semantic start)) is able to exhaustively "deduce" the grammar >> of such texts, in addition to being able to use it with any language, >> you would then: >> >> 1) have defined a "space"/"coordinate system" for those texts, to >> frame (pretty much) all possible "meaningful 'points'"/"phrases" in >> terms of such grammar, which would also; >> 2) be a 0-search structure describing the text bank/corpus (every >> text segment would also become a pointer to every single actualization >> of that very segment in all texts, no more "n-grams" necessary!), >> which could; >> 3) be used with minimal turking/supervision to: >> 3.1) cleanse up all automatic translations from youtube; >> 3.2) keep multilingual corpora; >> 3.3) use it for automatic translations (demonstrably, in an almost >> foolproof, perfect way, since you always have the words/phrases with >> their context); >> 3.4) "cosmic/tree reading": instead reading books/sequences of >> characters, you would read that text as it relates to all other texts >> from the same topic; >> 3.5) parsing: you would keep a corpus of what you know so you wont >> have to reread about certain topics and aspects you already know >> (great Lord! how I hate reading a whole book to only find a few, at >> times marginal, sentences worth reading! or that "youthful" thing of >> thinking that they just discovered/created an idea because they are >> just verbalizing it or made a movie about it!) BTW, regarding that >> "parsing" aspect, what is the term used to describe the gradual >> process of "terminological inception"? I have heard the term >> "Adamization", but, even though that word doesn't really rub me the >> wrong way, I could imagine it is "too sexist" to some people. I >> wouldn't really care calling it Eveization or "pussyfication" or >> whatever. I just don't want to use the term that the government uses: >> "lexical priming" and "terminological inception" sounds too cumbersome >> as a verb: "terminologically incept"? doesn't sound OK in English; >> 3.6) of course, an easy application of that contextual parsing would >> be removing all that js crap and ads before they reach your awareness; >> ... >> 3.n) not last and definitely not least I am thinking hard about how >> to make sure police and politicians at least have a hard time while >> using what I have described to "freedom love" people (I know, I know, >> ... "3.n" doesn't "technically" pertain to quality of implementation >> issues ..., but I, for one, disagree. Giving the "all tangible things" >> (tm) panopticon in which we are all living these days, each of us in >> one's own "virtual prison cell" to call it somehow, we should also >> think about, be openly honest about such matters) >> >> I am working right now on such Leibnizian "characteristica >> universalis" kind of thing. First cleansing approx. 1.2 million texts >> mostly from archive.org, *.pub and the NYS Regents exams >> (nysedregents.org + nysl.ptfs.com) which they have, at least >> partially, translated to more than 10 languages. Is that relevant >> enough to you? ;-) I am also being quite selfish about it because I >> have always dreamed of being able to "read"/mind all texts which have >> ever been written in the same way that teens think they have to have >> sex with everybody in town to make sense of things. >> >> > ii. one can certainly dissect/decompose texts ... >> >> Computing power has become insanely cheap, but it has also enabled >> too much "cleverhansing" out there. The Delphic phrase: "you can make >> sense or money" these times translates as some sort of corollary to: >> "using computers and then thinking about it makes you smart"; but, >> does it really? >> >> It amazes me how easily you can "dissect"/"decompose texts", talk >> about "tensors", "vectors", ... (I am not trying to police language >> usage, it just amazes me); let alone all the insufferable bsing claims >> by the "Artificial Intelligentsia". >> >> I would go with one character after the other and an open attempt to >> use the minimal amount of principles to then see what I get. IMO, when >> you start getting too smart about what you do, of course, you will >> "see" how smart you are. The poet in me likes Borges' stanzas: "... el >> nombre es arquetipo de la cosa, en las letras de 'rosa' está la rosa y >> todo el Nilo en la palabra 'Nilo'" ("its name is a thing's archetype, >> in the letters of 'rose' is the rose and the whole of the Nile (river) >> in the word 'Nile'") >> >> > II. Re ""magical" in the sense that when we go about our >> intersubjective business": some intersubjectivity can be further clarified. >> I don't see much of your examples as being "magical". >> >> I actually do! How could you clarified intersubjectivity? I am trying >> to do so (somewhat) Mathematically (to the extent you could). Could >> you share any papers, "prior art" on such matters? >> >> > ii. "other people may read, mind, as well ...;": so? >> >> which is a good thing it is alright, fine and dandy in the hippie way, I >> meant. >> >> > iii. "Alice bought some veggies from Bob, ...)": this I don't >> understand. >> > iv. "We see more in money ("words", ...) than just a piece of paper" >> >> iii. and iv. overlap to some extent so I will try to explain them >> both quickly (which is impossible since you can write philosophies >> about each line, but there I'll go). To understand what Marx (may >> have) meant by „gesellschaftlich notwendige Arbeit” ("socially >> necessary labour time", wording which has made quite a few go berserk >> ever since): >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socially_necessary_labour_time >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformation_problem >> >> you have to understand the basic mathematical concepts of: >> >> a) combined rates, and >> b) intratextual systems of linear equations >> >> Based on my teaching experience §b is easier to understand. Sorry I >> couldn't find an "easier" explanation on youtube of that type of SLEs >> than the one I used with my students preparing for the Regents: >> >> https://ergosumus.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/sle04-en.pdf >> >> the intratextuality of those problems matter to corpora research >> because different strata of "like terms" ("verbs", "adjectives", ...) >> is what creates grammar. "Crazy me" thinks you could to some extent >> describe the "likeness of terms" underlying grammar! >> ~ >> I also have a guideline about combined rates which I successfully >> used with my students: >> >> https://ergosumus.files.wordpress.com/2018/06/word_problems12-en00.pdf >> ~ >> What the eff do combined rates and SLEs have to do with Marx' >> transformation problem? ;-) >> >> Well, notice that the -equitable aspect- used to solve combined rates >> problems is the time (regardless of how differently fast one "works" >> in comparison with others). There is also another type of combine rate >> problems: you drive to some place with a friend who doesn't care about >> driving fast, but you need to rest so she drives for a while ... that >> problem is different from two people meeting at a place each driving >> "on their own cars" (at their own average speed). >> >> Serge Heiden shared a paper about presidential debates which could be >> also Mathematically studied as a CR kind of problem (even if >> politicians as the crowd management clowns they all are don't have to >> make sense, anyway), but as it happens with any dialogue there are >> parts of the conversations in which both the cars and the time is >> shared and other times when only (or more of) the time. I don't know >> of a general Mathematical formulation to CRs kinds of problems, which >> could be used for corpora research. On my "to do" list I have writing >> papers studying Euclid's Elements and Plato's Dialogues in that way. >> >> Karl Marx's as part of his „Wertgesetz der Waren” (reChristened in >> English as "labor theory of value") somewhat metaphorically stated >> that the exchange value of a commodity is a function of "society's >> labour-time". He also rendered his ideas as equations (in more of a >> verbally descriptive, metaphorical way), but that phrase: "society's >> labour-time", was and is still found from questionable to >> unfalsifiably wild. I don't claim to have mind reading powers, but I >> think in his letter to his friend Ludwig Kugelmann, the thoroughgoing >> Hegelian Marx was, he clearly explained what he meant (page: 222 in >> file, 208 in book): >> >> >> https://archive.org/download/marxengelsselectedcorrespondence/Marx%20%26%20Engels%2C%20Selected%20Correspondence.pdf >> >> Marx To Ludwig Kugelmann In Hanover London, July 11, 1868: >> All that palaver about the necessity of proving the concept of value >> comes from complete ignorance both of the subject dealt with and of >> scientific method. Every child knows that a nation which ceased to >> work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few weeks, would >> perish. Every child knows, too, that the masses of products >> corresponding to the different needs require different and >> quantitatively determined masses of the total labour of society. That >> this necessity of the distribution of social labour in definite >> proportions cannot possibly be done away with by a particular form of >> social production but can only change the mode of its appearance, is >> self-evident. No natural laws can be done away with. What can change >> in historically different circumstances is only the form in which >> these laws assert themselves. And the form in which this proportional >> distribution of labour asserts itself, in a state of society where the >> interconnection of social labour is manifested in the private exchange >> of the individual products of labour, is precisely the exchange value >> of these products. >> ~ >> So, as I see it, in a Hegelian way, Marx was seeing the whole of >> society as a corpus (in which we all live through our own >> texts/narratives) talking about "socially necessary labour time" in >> the way that "time" becomes the equitable aspect shared when >> people/(-society as a whole-) work together as described by combined >> rates kinds of problems. >> >> When "Alice buys some veggies from Bob, ..." she used money as >> "equitable aspect" to get Bob's veggies (in the Marxian way they were >> both part of a combine rates problem) and you tell me this is not >> magical! >> >> > v. "some transactional electronic ("air"...) excitations": I don't get >> this. >> >> you may pay with cash using coins or bills or using your debit card >> which at the end of the day become transactional electronic >> excitations on some hard drives. When you speak there is more to it >> than vibrations/fluctuations of air. (I am referring to the medium >> which Saussurean signifiers use) >> >> > vi. "your 'magic' and mine are different we are still able to >> 'communicate'. How on earth do such things happen?": a disclaimer: I am not >> using any magic in my attempts to communicate with you here. I try my best >> to place myself in your shoes to guesstimate the points that you are trying >> to get across. But many (as you can see above) didn't quite reach me. >> >> "I try my best to place myself in your shoes" ... ;-) Ha, ha, ha! >> that is just a functional illusion. What do you know about "my shoes"? >> I work as a gardener (which I love to do) so they are dirty and >> smelly, ... I also love to eat garlic ... As I see things standing on >> "my dirty and smelly shoes and voicing it from my garlicky mouth" >> being honest and true to matters is good enough. >> >> lbrtchx >> _______________________________________________ >> Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] >> https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> > _______________________________________________ > Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] > https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ Corpora mailing list -- [email protected] https://list.elra.info/mailman3/postorius/lists/corpora.list.elra.info/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
