Re: Unambiguous languages (was: EU allumettes)

taliesin the storyteller said:
> * Mark P. Line said on 2004-05-07 23:26:24 +0200
>>
>> taliesin the storyteller said:
>> >
>> > 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?
>
> Uhm, you do know that polysemy is wholely dependent on the language it
> occurs in, right?
I think I might have read something about that once, yes.

When you say that CY gets rid of *English* polysemy, you imply that there
is some *other* kind of polysemy that CY does *not* get rid of.

What is this *other* kind of polysemy you imply that CY doesn't get rid of?


>> 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
>
> You'd need a deeper/broader Net than Princeton WordNet for that.
For *what*? To support at least the same range of communication as a
natlang would? If the lexicon of English suffices, then English WordNet
suffices -- and the CY lexicon suffices. (If CY morphosyntax is
insufficient to the task, that's another matter -- but you're addressing
the lexical ontology here, not grammar.)


> Have you had a look at CyC?
Yes, but I have my own ontologies for my ab initio ontolang (Waldzell),
which CY is not (and was never intended to be).


-- Mark