|1972 Experiment A: mapping semantic inferential content||1972 Experiment B: mapping semantic inferential content|
many languages wrestle with the issue of scope of quantification and scope of negation inventing such constructs as doo' | da (Navajo), ne | pas (French) and mana | ču (Quechua) (I recall from Mongolian class that that language did the same thing)
ambiguity for referents
persists in sentences like these due to Lakoff:
The city council refused to give the women a permit to demonstrate because they X-ed Y.
When X and Y are "feared violence" then "they" refers to the city council But when X and Y are "advocated revolution" then "they" refers to the women
Hence, I concluded in 1972 as shown in the following diagram that fortunately, language will soon be written as a graph in N dimensions, doughnuts and all.
A set of semantic primitives rich enough to encode the following, and axiomatized (with a predicate calculus) to support a basic inference engine is probably sufficient for most of human expression (at least that containing no molecules).
Human languages are more similar than differernt.blurb5
concepts of layout and connectedness that allow objects to attract, repel and otherwise influence one another when subjected to transformations such as movement (translation and rotation) and metamorphosis (shrinking, changing color, undergoing changes of Gaussian blur , etc.).
extensions of the drawing primitives (e.g., through a <replicate> tag which would be like the <animate> tag only for space rather than time. This allows the simple and declarative declaration of things like patterns and tilings, rich classes of contours, and animation farms.