Zeno wrote: > There is a person on this list who Uh-oh. May I distract you with a cool ontological URL? http://www.let.uva.nl/~ewn/corebcs/topont.htm > Arguments have been offered on the one hand that technology has always > shaped our actions, and on the other hand that machines should do what > we want them to and not the other way around. Obviously both of these > are true. Yes. > Computers are > still expensive, and instead of using our language faculties to > operate them, we must click on them. Intel and others are pushing speech recognition, right now. Apple tried it out in the late 1980's, and it works. Better than point-and-shoot? Yes. Well, mostly. Often. > If I am driving along the road with a companion Now context rears its ugly heads ... > The languages centers of the human brain are always going to provide > us with plenty of ambiguity, emotions, and societal influence in > everything we say and everything we hear. That's the use of the tool, not the tool (language) itself. > Learning a more easily > parsible language to make the computer's job of constructing a parse > tree will not help it with the semantic interpretation and real-world > knowledge representation. It should be the trivial first step. Our sloppy natlangs make it unreasonably difficult. They confuse us in our thought, also. (Sapir-Whorf arise from their graves.) > And by the time computers can understand > our societal standards, ambiguity, conflict, and emotions, computers > will no longer need parse trees, and will probably not need us. Right, because the process of understanding will result in revolutionizing everything. > Computer-readability is a non-issue in selecting an auxiliary > language. We are not Vulcans, I say! Speak for yourself, I'm on *their* side.