Re: what is a loglang?

At 07:48 6.5.2004, Mark P. Line wrote:

>Actually, my next question would be "Why fetishize propositional and
>predicate logic and its analogues?". It seems like there would be a lot
>less impedance matching to do if a logic were chosen that was more like
>language. (No natlang has variables. FOPC quantification does not map
>straightforwardly onto any identifiable natlang phenomenon. So choose a
>logic that gets by without variables and that does quantification like
>natlangs do.)
Are there even the beginnings of such a logic around.
In my experience the preoccupation with propositional and
predicate logic and its analogues in certain linguistic
is ultimately ancillary to the desire to process natural
language with computers.  While I think it would be nice
to be able to speak to my computer I do think it is a
bad idea to shoehorn linguistics as a whole into the
desires of "computational linguistics".  IMNSHO that
should be computer scientists' *use* of linguistics
rather than the proper study of linguistics itself,
which should study the spontaneous use of language
by sentient beings (human or other).

Besides, what is _FOPC_ an abbreviation of?



/BP 8^)
--
B.Philip Jonsson mailto:melrochX@melroch.se (delete X)

         Solitudinem faciunt pacem appellant!
                                             (Tacitus)

Reply