Responding to taliesin and Philip here on this topic. (I'll respond to And
Rosta's suggested ambiguous sentence after I've reviewed what I used to
know about CY scope semantics.)
taliesin the storyteller said:
> * And Rosta said on 2004-05-06 05:02:33 +0200
>>
>> I may have mixed CY up with another conlang in my memory, but my
>> recollection is that it adopts Word Net as the inventory of its
>> word senses. By so doing, it gets rid of ambiguity arising from
>> polysemy.
>
> It gets rid of *English* polysemy.
What other kind of polysemy does it *fail* to get rid of, or what other
kind of polysemy does it (unintentionally) introduce?
What difference does it make what (real or engineered) language is taken
as the starting point as long as (a) the resulting lexicon is unambiguous,
and (b) the semantic scope of the resulting lexicon is broad and deep
enough to support at least the same range of communication as a natlang
would (other than the fact that it's not sexy to start from English)?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Philip Jonsson:
> An unambiguous language would not be amenable to change, and since human
> culture changes it would eventually be discarded.
What makes you say that an unambiguous language would not be amenable to
change?
-- Mark