Doug, (01)
It appears you are using a classic, but common, definition of grammar.
It results in a rather static definition of language that is not useful
for semantic applications. Austin's definitions of language are more
functional, although a bit primitive. (02)
What we need is a dictionary that shows us the linguistic uses of words
that can be used with semantic applications. It should show the context
for usage, and what action should take place as a result of usage. This
follows along the work of Austin and I think many would agree with this
approach. WordNet tries to do some of this, but it is only a beginning
and relies on the reader to extract what is needed. (03)
-John Bottoms
FirstStar (04)
On 10/13/2010 10:24 AM, doug foxvog wrote:
> Pavithra wrote:
>
>> Isn't grammar the logic of the language? The verbs and the nouns and
>> what should follow what?? )
>
> Grammar in a natural language is a description of how that language is
> normally used. If an accepted grammar is not followed that means either
> that the usage is somehow "improper", or that the grammar inadequately
> describes the normal usage of the language.
>
> Grammatical rules can be expressed using a logical formalism, but
> that does not mean that the grammar itself is a logic.
>
> -- doug (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (06)
|