Re: [ontolog-forum] language ambiguity (was: Axiomatic ontology)

[Jakub Kotowski <jakubkotowski@xxxxxxx>]

John,    (01)

John F. Sowa wrote:
> Rob,
> 
> This is not an argument about words.
>     (02)

<snip>    (03)

> I'm not sure what you mean, but I'll state my opinions:
> 
>   1. The vagueness and ambiguity of natural languages are inevitable
>      in any robust, flexible system of communication among any large
>      group of people with different goals and backgrounds who are
>      faced with a complex and changing environment.    (04)

I would like to add that the ambiguity or vagueness of natural languages
is probably not only inevitable but also a *wanted* and *beneficial*
property as Steven Pinker argues for example in this interesting talk:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/164 (the core of the argument
starts rougly from the 9th minute).
It is the difference between stating a fact/an offer directly and
bluntly versus saying it so that there are more possible meanings one of
which may not be so offending as the blunt one (example could be trying
to bribe someone).
Do you think that this property could be beneficial for artificial
languages (like those for multi agent systems) too?    (05)

Jakub    (06)




_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (07)