Newsgroups: sci.lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!news.mathworks.com!news.alpha.net!uwm.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!elna
From: elna@netcom.com (Esperanto League N America)
Subject: machine logic & language  
Message-ID: <elnaD6Jn12.DG7@netcom.com>
Organization: Esperanto League for North America, Inc.
References: <3lr729$q34@oak.oakland.edu> <smryanD6IyBM.95B@netcom.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Apr 1995 03:58:14 GMT
Lines: 29
Sender: elna@netcom2.netcom.com

smryan@netcom.com (Pastor Rod Flash) writes in a recent posting (reference <smryanD6IyBM.95B@netcom.com>):
>
>It is unlikely that any such language will replace natural
>languages. Syntactically, the human brain appears to use a
>very different parser than a computer. Computer languages
>generaly very precise delimiters, while natural languages
>are a bit sloppier. Computer languages have deeply nested
>constructs. Computer and natural languages use redundancies
>in different ways.
>
I confess my ignorance in the latest developements in "fuzzy logic"
and wonder if anybody can tell about research in bringing computers
and humans closer together in communication style.

>Natural languages apparently use semantic information to
>deal with syntactic ambiguities.
>
Can silicon chips (and their extensions) be taught this?

>Semantically, computer languages are restricted to predetermined
>semantic domain. Natural languages appear to be self
>adapting. 

Can "fuzzy logic" break down this restriction? Or are there other
experimental arenas for this issue?

Miko.


