|From:||William Frank <williamf.frank@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Wed, 2 May 2012 17:22:18 -0400|
While explicitly saying that the difficulties with the fine points::
cat in box
is a a picture of a way that things might be, we could draw the same picture in UML, for example.
Not quite. This is the problem, English mixes together the speech and the verb of the propositional content, with the verb "put" in this case. Put" is not a type of command. Instead, Put" is the sythesis of two independend ideas (1. a command) 2. a previous and future location of one object and other.
In a simple view:
The English sentence turns into
Command (commanding party: not specified, commanded party: Tom, propositionToMakeTrue( Cat in Box))
There is no "put" the put disapears. This is a key part of speech act analysis.
To be more precise
"Tom, put the cat in the box:
has the presupositions:
at the time this speech act occoured,
1. (cat in box) is false
2. commanding party has the right to issue the command to the commanded party
Tom, Jump High
tom make the proposition (tom jumps high) true right away.
the different things you request something to DO, in english, for example ,put, get, move, jump, are not different speech acts or different commands
are all burried in differetn forms of the verb, we need to seaprate those out, so that the ontology of cats and boxes and therre possible relationships iand kangaroos and jumpoting s entirely separate from the ontology of speech acts, which are organized** only** according to the classifiers and subtypes that others in this forum have displayed in their emails or that will be found in various books.
Jumping and putting is part of the ontology of things that happen, that happen in the physical world,
as is commanding, requesting, and asking, part ot the ontology of things that happen in the world of a speech community.
I think this is right. A speech act is a kind of action, a directive is a kind of speech act, and a command is a kind o directive. An instance of a command therefore has to have two parts: the illucutionaly force and the associated act participant roles, as well as the proposition about which the act is concerned, so that we might have other directives with the same roles and proposition, but of a different time, such as suggest, request, and demand.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands, Patrick Cassidy|
|Next by Date:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands, Hans Polzer|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands, Nicola Guarino|
|Next by Thread:||Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontology of Commands, John F Sowa|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|