W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > January 2001

Re: What We Have Here Is A Problem In Communication

From: Jon Awbrey <jawbrey@oakland.edu>
Date: Tue, 23 Jan 2001 10:44:57 -0500
Message-ID: <3A6DA6F9.E6CFFCC8@oakland.edu>
To: Arisbe <arisbe@stderr.org>, Conceptual Graphs <cg@cs.uah.edu>, RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, SemioCom <semiocom@listbot.com>
CC: Gilles Arnaud <gilles-arnaud@wanadoo.fr>, Patrick Benazet <patrick.benazet@libertysurf.fr>

Patrick Benazet wrote:
> on comprend mieux effectivement ...

"Voila!" machine translation:

> One understands better effectively ...

Is that correct?
I mean the translation,
but maybe also the original.

The computing machine understands "effectively",
in the sense of "effective clerical procedure",
almost as if by the definition of "effective",
but does an automaton understand "affectively",
that is, does it get irritated at the doubts,
and by the "manifold of impressions" (MOI?),
that incite it on its brief, all too brief,
then on its long, all too long, inquiries?

I wonder ...

Jon Awbrey

P.S.  Explanation of at least one of the jokes:
      I find it amusing to use the word "atoll"
      in circumstances where one is choosing --
      or is perhaps forced by circumstances --
      to circumlocute, to periphrase, that is,
      to talk around the object of one's signs,
      not quite reaching the shore of the island,
      that may, indeed, no longer be there atoll.

      I know that it is "bad form" to explain a joke,
      but because "We Scholars" are not very funny folk,
      anyway, perhaps it may be permitted, at least here.

      Also:  "diathread" = "diatribe" + "thread".


What follows is just one of my little experiments --
and most people just hate my little experiments! --
into the nature of artificial translation ...


1.  Initial Text (I dare not say "Original", myself!)

S幦iotique et Communication Home Page: Archive: Message #691 

-----Message d'origine-----
    De:  Jon Awbrey [mailto:jawbrey@oakland.edu]
Envoy:  dimanche 21 janvier 2001 16:32
     :  Arisbe; Conceptual Graphs; RDF Logic; SemioCom
    Cc:  Dietrich Fischer; Mary Keeler; Jack Park; John F Sowa
 Objet:  What We Have Here Is A Problem In Communication

What we have here, in the discussions that I have been e-avesdropping on,
is information about an "apparent, prospective, tentative object" (APTO).
I call it an "object" because, whatever else it may be or not, it is the
object of "discussion and thought" (DAT), and I adjoin the rest of those
adjectival qualifiers in order to hedge our bets about the circumstance
that there may be nothing atoll that we are talking about, in the end,
if and when it comes to that.

I am breaking from my other diathreads in order to give you some hint
that the "pragmatic theory of signs" (PTOS) might just have something
new and potentially useful to say about this kind of a discursive and,
quite frequently, if not ultimately periodically, recursive situation,
since I think that finding the "formal and computational" (FAC) means
to resolve it is very important to the future of communication in our
new medium, and because, even without being able to follow all of the
little details of your local and particular languages yet, I overhear
what sounds like not a few lines that I have heard before and I fancy
that I can recognize at least a few aspects of a story, if just a bit
scattered across the spectrum of indefinities between the disjunctive
unaverse of the "general or vague" (GOV) and the conjunctive universe
of the "vague and general" (VAG), that is slightly familiar to myself.

If you sampled any of the readings that I passed on to you with regard
to the "pragmatic theory of signs" (PTOS), about the formally concrete
objects that are called "sign relations" and their related "complexes",
then you know that a sign relation can be regarded as little more than
a relational data-base -- not indexed, of course, that would be deemed
to be cheating the aims of the whole enterprise -- and so, accordingly,
the easiest and the quickest way to pin this PTOS to the ornery orders
of problems that are presently affecting your several abilities to get
off the ground here -- let me catch my breath! -- is to treat each one
of them as we would the familiar, all too familiar cases that arise in
dealing with the true nitty-gritty and cantankerous natures of genuine
data bases, "the heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks" that real
data is heir to, to wit, the issues of "data integrity", including the
specialized problematics of "in/coherent reference" and "missing data".

In taking this view, I am suggesting that the nature of the calculi,
the languages, the software, and all of the rest of the motley crew
of data management devices and systems that we customarily bring to
bear on the task, are probably tangential to the nature of the data
domain itself, and even moreso with respect to the "pragma", namely,
the "object" domain or the "objective" realm that it is the utility
of this "data", from the days when it was just a bootstrapling tyke,
familiarly nichenamed the "data of the senses" (DOTS), to delineate.

I now return you to the program already in progress ...

Back In The Box,

Cool Hand Jon


2.  Machine Translation Into French

S幦iotique et communication Home Page: Archive: Message #694

Date:  Jan 21 2001 16:45:17 EST
From:  "arnaud gilles" <gilles-arnaud@wanadoo.fr>
Subj:  RE: What We Have Here Is A Problem In Communication

Votre texte a 彋 traduit en Fran蓷is par Reverso de Softissimo:

Que nous avons ici, dans les discussions dont j'ai 嶰out嶪s, Est
l'information sur "un objet apparent, 憝entuel, exp廨imental" (APTO).
Je l'appelle "un objet" parce que, quoi qu'autrement il peut 皻re ou
pas, il est le L'objet "de la discussion et a pens" (DAT) et je suis
contigu au reste de ceux-l Qualificateurs adjectifs pour prot嶲er
nos paris de la circonstance Qu'il ne puisse y avoir rien l'atoll
que nous parlons de, dans la fin, Si et quand il y vient.

Je me casse de mon autre diathreads pour vous donner quelque
allusion Que "la th廩rie pragmatique de signes" (PTOS) puisse
juste avoir quelque chose Nouvel et potentiellement utile de dire
de cette sorte de discursifs et, Tout  fait fr廦uemment, si non en fin
de compte p廨iodiquement, situation r嶰ursive, Puisque je pense que la
d嶰ouverte le "formel et informatique" (FAC) signifie Pour r廥oudre c'est
tr鋊 important pour l'avenir de communication dans notre Nouveau moyen et
parce que, m瘱e sans 皻re capable pour suivre tous Peu de d彋ails de vos
langues locales et particuli鋨es encore, j'entends Quels sons comme pas
quelques lignes que j'ai entendu auparavant et je m'imagine Que je puisse
reconna褾re au moins quelques aspects d'une histoire, si juste un peu
Dispers  travers le spectre d'indefinities entre le disjonctif
Non oppos "du g幯廨al ou vague" (GOV) et l'univers conjonctif
du "Vague et g幯廨al" (VAG), qui est l嶲鋨ement familier  moi.

Si vous avez 嶰hantillonn n'importe laquelle
des lectures que je vous ai pass avec le respect
" la th廩rie pragmatique de signes" (PTOS), du
formellement b彋on Les objets qui sont appel廥
"des relations de signe" et leurs "complexes"
li廥, Alors vous savez qu'une relation de signe
peut 皻re consid廨嶪 comme un peu plus que Une
base de donn嶪s relationnelle -- non index,
bien sr, que l'on consid廨erait Tromper les
buts de l'entreprise enti鋨e -- et ainsi, en
cons廦uence, Le plus facile et la fa蔞n la plus
rapide d'廧ingler ce PTOS aux ordres m嶰hants
Des probl鋗es qui affectent actuellement vos
plusieurs capacit廥 d'arriver De la raison (terre)
ici -- me font attraper mon souffle! -- doit traiter
chaque D'eux comme nous le familier, tous les cas
(affaires) trop familiers qui surgissent dans
Traitant avec le vrai essentiel et les natures
tracassi鋨es de v廨itables Bases de donn嶪s,
"la peine de coeur et le mille chocs naturels"
que r嶪l Les donn嶪s sont l'h廨itier de,  l'esprit,
les questions (publications) "de l'int嶲rit de donn嶪s",
y compris le Probl幦atique sp嶰ialis嶪 "d'en r嶨廨ence"
et "donn嶪s manquantes (disparues)".

Dans la prise de cette vue, je sugg鋨e que la nature
des calculs, Les langues, le logiciel et tout le reste
de l'廦uipage bariol De dispositifs de gestion de donn嶪s
et les syst鋗es auxquels nous apportons habituellement
Appuyez-vous sur la t歊he, sont probablement tangentiel
 la nature des donn嶪s Domaine lui-m瘱e et m瘱e moreso
en ce qui concerne le "pragma",  savoir, Le domaine
"d'objet" ou le royaume "objectif" que c'est l'utilit
De ces "donn嶪s", des jours o c'彋ait juste un chien
b漮ard bootstrapling, Famili鋨ement nichenamed
"les donn嶪s des sens" (POINTS), pour tracer.


3.  Machine Re-Translation Back Into English

Your text was translated into Frenchman by Reverso of Softissimo:

That we have here, in the discussions of which I listened, East
The information about "a visible, possible, experimental object" (APTO).
I Call it "an object" because, whatever otherwise he can be or not, it (him)
Is The object "the discussion and thought" (DAT) and I am adjoining in Rest
of those Qualificateurs adjectives to protect our Paris of her (it) Circumstance
That he can there have nothing the atoll about which we speak of, in The end,
If and when it (he) comes there.  I break myself of my other diathreads for
To give you some allusion That "the pragmatic theory of signs" (PTOS) Can
just have something new and potentially useful to say of This sort of
discursive and, Completely frequently, if not at the end of Account
periodically, r嶰ursive situation, Because I think that Discovered
(found) "formal and computer" (FACULTY) means to resolve it is Very
important for the future of communication in our New means and Because,
even without being capable to follow all Few details of your Local and
particular languages still, I hear (understand) Which sounds as not
Some lines that I listened previously and I imagine myself That I
can Recognize at least some aspects of a history, so just little
Being scattered through the spectre of indefinities enters the not
opposite disjonctif "Of the general or vagueness (wave)" (GOV) and
the conjunctival (conjunctive) universe of "vague and general" (VAG),
who is slightly familiar to me.

If you sampled Whatever of the readings that I crossed (spent) you with
the respect "In her (it) Pragmatic theory of signs" (PTOS), of formally
concrete The objects which "Relations of sign" are called and their
bound (connected) "complexes", Then you Please, know that a relation
of sign can be considered as a little more than A relational data base --
not indexed, naturally, that one Would consider To deceive the purposes
of the whole company -- and so, there Consequence, the easiest and the
fastest way of pinning this PTOS In the nasty orders Of The problems
which affect at present your several Capacities to arrive From the
reason (earth ((ground)) here -- make me catch my Breath! -- should
treat (handle) every With them as us the regular visitor, all Case
(business ((cases)) too familiar which appear in Dealing with the
truth The main part and the tracassi鋨es natures of real Data bases,
"Punishment (effort) of heart and thousand natural shocks" that
reality The data are The heir of, in the spirit, the questions
(publications)" of the integrity of Given", including specialized
Problem "of there reference " and "Missing data (missing persons)".

In the grip of this sight, I suggest that The nature of
the calculations, The languages, the software et cetera of
The multicoloured De crew devices of management of data and
the systems To which we usually bring, please, Lean on the
task, are Probably tangentiel in the nature of the data
Domain itself and even Moreso as regards the "pragma",
namely, The domain "of object" or "Objective" realm
that it is the utility Of these "data", a days when It
was just a bootstrapling mongrel, Familiarly nichenamed
"Data of the senses (directions)" (POINTS), to draw.


By way of excuse, or in lieu of a proper apology,
here is a citation that I make in my dissertaion:

| I think we need to reflect upon the circumstance that every word implies
| some proposition or, what is the same thing, every word, concept, symbol
| has an equivalent term -- or one which has become identified with it, --
| in short, has an 'interpretant'.
| Consider, what a word or symbol is;  it is a sort of representation.
| Now a representation is something which stands for something.  ...
| A thing cannot stand for something without standing 'to' something 'for'
| that something.  Now, what is this that a word stands 'to'?  Is it a person?
| We usually say that the word 'homme' stands to a Frenchman for 'man'.
| It would be a little more precise to say that it stands 'to' the
| Frenchman's mind -- to his memory.  It is still more accurate
| to say that it addresses a particular remembrance or image
| in that memory.  And what 'image', what remembrance?
| Plainly, the one which is the mental equivalent of
| the word 'homme' -- in short, its interpretant.
| Whatever a word addresses then or 'stands to',
| is its interpretant or identified symbol.  ...
| The interpretant of a term, then, and that which it stands to are identical.
| Hence, since it is of the very essence of a symbol that it should stand 'to'
| something, every symbol -- every word and every 'conception' -- must have an
| interpretant -- or what is the same thing, must have information or implication.
| Charles Sanders Peirce, 'Writings: A Chronological Edition', CE 1, pages 466-467.
| Cited in Jon Awbrey, "Inquiry Driven Systems: An Inquiry Into Inquiry",
| Subsection "C'est Moi"
| http://www.door.net/arisbe/menu/library/aboutcsp/awbrey/inquiry.htm

With regard to what Peirce says here:

I think that it stands to reason.

Jon Awbrey

Received on Tuesday, 23 January 2001 10:46:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 2 March 2016 11:10:33 UTC