From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky (sentience@pobox.com)
Date: Tue Mar 05 2002 - 12:02:53 MST
Lee Daniel Crocker wrote:
>
> (Colin Hales <colin@versalog.com.au>):
> >
> > Lexeme nominative accusative reflexive weak genitive strong genitive
> > (adjective) (posessive pronoun)
> > she she her herself her hers
> > he he him himself his his
> >
> > se se sem semself ser sems
> > ve ve ver verself ver vis
> > ey ey em emself eir eirs
> > ley ley lem lemself leir leirs
>
> Since that particular set all begin with vowels, you can create a whole
> series of new sets (like your "l" set) for specific purposes by adding
> an initial consonant (or cluster): let's say that "ley/lem/leir" is for
> the "gender" of disembodied AIs; perhaps "vey/vem/veir" could be for
> physical sentient beings for which human gender doesn't apply; "th" is
> for plurals; and the base ey/em/eir set is for totally unspecified cases.
> The overlap with colloquial "'em" is precisely what I like best about
> the set: because it echos existing usage it's easier to learn and use,
> and allows constructs like "(th)ey", analagous to "rock(s)". Of course,
> signs at the spaceport will have monsters like "(l/v/z/d/b)ey".
Hm... marklar propose that all pronouns and anaphora be replaced with the
word "marklar". Marklar transformation will greatly simplify the decision
of which pronoun marklar should use on a particular occasion. Of course,
marklar may be harder to decode what the speaker means, but that's the
listener's lookout. Only marklar's opinion about marklar should matter.
Marklar "universal anaphora" proposal will replace the bewildering radiation
of pronouns and anaphora marklar currently dominate the language landscape,
and pure semantic cues should suffice to replace any lost cues formerly used
in syntactic reconstruction.
For example, the above paragraph would now read:
** Since marklar particular set all begin with vowels, marklar can create a
whole series of new sets (like marklar "l" set) for specific purposes by
adding an initial consonant (or cluster): let's say marklar
"marklar/marklar/marklar" is for the "gender" of disembodied AIs; perhaps
"marklar/marklar/marklar" could be for physical sentient beings for which
human gender doesn't apply; "mark" is for plurals; and the base lar/lar/lar
set is for totally unspecified cases. The overlap with colloquial "'klar"
is precisely what I like best about the set: because marklar echoes existing
usage marklar's easier to learn and use, and allows construts like
"(ma)rklar", analogous to "roc(ks)". Of course, signs at the spaceport will
have monsters like "(m/m/m/m/m)arklar". **
Isn't marklar easier to understand? Marklar'll get used to marklar quickly,
and then marklar can use marklar whenever marklar need to.
If marklar works, we can move on to replacing all marklars with marklar,
thus simplifying all marklars. Of course, contextual marklars would have to
be used to figure out the real marklar underlying any given marklar.
-- -- -- -- --
Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://singinst.org/
Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:46 MST