The problem of translation (by linguists) is to align two forms( in two
different langauges) with the conclusion that they are Semantically and
Pragmatically equivalent. The correct translation may be expected from a
person who is aware that both forms realte to the same chunk of reality and
the forms must be cheched for that sort of identity preserved. in roder to
be able to do that you must be able to chunk reality in a measningful
manner, which is not individual words but clusters. Second, you must be well
versed in the representations of the world to a level of domain specialists.
Otherwise you will lose information by substituting concepts you do not
know by their type or class, etc. So the level of detail or specificity is
going to be lost. As there are several lingusitci (formal) possibilities for
translating anything, the first issue is to make sure that your chunking is
right in a situation where the borders of a phrase signifying an object are
not always clear. Without such a specific knowledge you cannot decide issues
like this: What to translate into(call) the following phrase:
Integrated serum separator (01)
Integrated separator? (02)
Integrated serum? and you a lot more similar examples, i am sure. (03)
regards, ferenc (04)
. (05)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies associalmediators
(was:Ontologydevelopment method) (06)
> Wow do I agree with you Bill on this post!
>
> What more evidence is there of subjectivity importance than someone who is
> familiar with at least two linguistic cultures is even available?
>
> Ferenc's postings show his amazingly deep ontological awareness, and I
> believe that is due to the subjectivity of all our consciousnesses.
>
> JMHO,
> -Rich
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Burkett,
> William [USA]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:06 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as socialmediators
> (was:Ontologydevelopment method)
>
> I guess I live in Ferenc's world, Chris. Setting aside some sentence
> construction problems, I understand what he's saying and agree with it -
> and
> I don't understand your perspective that his assertions are
> false/meaningless.
>
> Ferenc's statement that he's a linguist is important to understanding his
> (and my) perspective. I think linguistics has a LOT more to contribute to
> the field of ontology development than logic does.
>
> Bill
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Christopher
> Menzel
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 2:38 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators
> (was:Ontologydevelopment method)
>
> On Dec 2, 2009, at 3:14 PM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
>> Chris M wrote:
>>
>>> If what you say is true, you should be able to give a valid argument for
> it. However, if what you say is true, it will not be possible for you to
> do
> so, since a valid argument must depend on the validity of the basic laws
> of
> logic. Hence, what you say is not true. (Of course, you will not accept
> this
> argument since it depends on the argument pattern Reductio Ad Absurdum,
> which according to you is not endorsed by reason and hence, presumably, is
> not valid.)
>>
>> A proposal in a natural language may not be identical withn itself. E.g.
> No one likes to be contradicted =/ No one likes to be contradicted Or:
> Everyone loves finding another one in contradiction with him/herself
> Subject
> to the emphasis you may vary when reading it out, you will have diferent
> meanings exposed. Or in simple English: I want to pay you for your
> contribution. Each "content" word may be emphasized, gramamr words cannot,
> they will not change the meaning that way. they are like nuts and bolts,
> So
> it is the FOCUS that will vary meaning. You need to know where the fpcus
> is
> in a statement. But normally, our focus is very limited and missing in
> writing. Old grammarians believe that words are in the centre of semantic
> analysis, but they are not. they also believe that there are such things
> as
> abstract nouns and conrete nouns, which is not correct either. Identity is
> Not objective and fixed and a law. Do you want me to elabrate on that?
> There
> is an abstract-concrete an
> d generic-specific continuum which is the reflection of one's knowledge or
> learnedness. Do you want me to go into the details of that?
>
> I can't imagine that would be a good use of either your time or mine. By
> my
> admittedly dim lights, every assertion you make above is either obviously
> false or meaningless. No offense intended, that's just the honest truth.
> Let's just say we live in different worlds and leave it at that.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx>
>> To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 6:03 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies as social mediators
>> (was:Ontologydevelopment method)
>>
>>
>>> On Dec 1, 2009, at 10:51 AM, FERENC KOVACS wrote:
>>>> ...I find that the basic laws of logic, i. e. the law of identity, etc.
>>>> are not endorsed by reason seeing truth as the ultimate criteria of
>>>> anything worth stating and accepting as plausible knowledge.
>>>
>>> If what you say is true, you should be able to give a valid argument for
>>> it. However, if what you say is true, it will not be possible for you to
>>> do so, since a valid argument must depend on the validity of the basic
>>> laws of logic. Hence, what you say is not true. (Of course, you will
> not
>>> accept this argument since it depends on the argument pattern Reductio
>>> Ad
>
>>> Absurdum, which according to you is not endorsed by reason and hence,
>>> presumably, is not valid.)
>>>
>>>> On the contrary, they are endorsed by emotion and will,
>>>
>>> So I guess it follows for you (although how can it *follow* if there are
>>> no objectively valid logical laws by which one thing follows from
>>> another?) that there can be no debates. Rather, on your telling, we
>>> simply throw out our opinions (all of them ungrounded in argument, it
>>> appears) and hope that others will accept them in virtue of a sudden
> flood
>>> of emotion or a non-rational act of will. And, indeed, reading through
>>> your post, it does appear to be simply a series of assertions with nary
> an
>>> argument to be found so you do appear to be consistent on that score.
>>>
>>>> since truth is something people are ready to fight for and anything
>>>> claimed to be not true would normally upset the person claiming that
>>>> point, if challenged.
>>>
>>> I hope I haven't upset you. ;-)
>>>
>>> Chris Menzel
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (08)
|