General Discussion > Small talk

Quotes: Computational Semantics


What are we doing - in semi-Prologuese?

Has anyone run the program? After a few minutes, the fan gets louder and it basically stays loud until you stop the process.

Then, there's the bright side of it... there's no time for that.

Linguists have something that data doesn't have. They can see infinity.

If I tell you: "If it's not raining, we're gonna go skiing", you have to set up this little mouse trap: "I have to watch out whether it's raining."

Somebody asked me: "You still do linguistics? Isn't that solved?"

Unification without the occurs check is like driving without a seatbelt, where you can move more freely and get onto the backseat while driving - much nicer and faster.

I don't know what we would refer to Jack the Ripper as if they had used skolem functions.

So this is intelligent, not stupid.

...knowing that there is no limit to making it more efficient because it's an undecidable task.

Nobody in their right mind uses anything that is readable by a human being.

15 years ago there wouldn't have bee the Computational Semantics to do it, and there wouldn't have been the Wikipedia to do it.

Moving to a logic with a higher expressive power does not necessarily entail disaster.

In Twin Peaks, nobody is what they appear to be, so you get into intensional aspects.


[0] Message Index

Go to full version