From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!cs.uiuc.edu!sparc0b!epstein Tue Nov 24 10:52:25 EST 1992
Article 7674 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.lang:9654 sci.philosophy.tech:4600 comp.ai.philosophy:7674 talk.philosophy.misc:1682
Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy,talk.philosophy.misc
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!cs.uiuc.edu!sparc0b!epstein
>From: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein)
Subject: Re: RFD: sci.philosophy.language (REPOST)
Message-ID: <BxvDLo.A0v@cs.uiuc.edu>
Keywords: philosophy of language, new group, newgroup, POL
Sender: news@cs.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: epstein@cs.uiuc.edu
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
References: <1992Nov14.114224.2532@samba.oit.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 16:53:47 GMT
Lines: 49

In <1992Nov14.114224.2532@samba.oit.unc.edu> Rick.Horowitz@launchpad.unc.edu (Rick Horowitz) writes:

>Anyway, I want to respond to some of the discussion coming up about
>my recommendation for a group called sci.philosophy.language.
> 
>1)      Some people have said things like: "I too would be interested
>        such a group.  I'm particularly interested in 'psychological
>        and computational aspects of language'."  What I don't
>        understand is: Why wouldn't these things belong under
>        sci.lang, comp.ai.philosophy, or even sci.philosophy.tech?
>        Certainly there might be ways of talking about these that
>        belong in sci.philosophy.language, but my reading of the
>        comments indicates to me that the way the post was intended,
>        it's something less philosophical that they were interested
>        in.  (But maybe I'm wrong; I often am.)

I've just noticed this thread, and I thought I'd add my $.02 in.  And
I'm going to echo the comments you're responding to here -- I'm one of
those primarily interested in psychological and computational aspects
of language.  While it's arguable that these topics fall under those
covered by the newsgroups you mention, there typically isn't much
discussion of them there (in fact, one of your given reasons for
wanting to have sci.phil.lang is to create a forum to discuss the
types of issues you're interested in -- even though it could be argued
that they also fit into the existing newsgroups).

One possibility is a reorganization (or creation, rather) of a
sci.lang.* hierarchy, something including things like:

     sci.lang.philosophy
     sci.lang.comp
     sci.lang.psychology  (perhaps these latter two should be combined somehow)
     ...

(I'm not really sure what the implications of having
sci.lang.philosophy instead of sci.philosophy.lang are.)

Now I realize that proposals to reorganize sci.lang have come up every
now and then, and never get anywhere, so the same will probably happen
to this one.  Mainly my point is that consideration should be given to
having a separate forum for psychological and computational apects of
language (i.e. separate from what exists now, and separate from the
proposed POL group).

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu


