00:01:27 budabaaaaaaaaa 00:01:42 i wanna write some haskell 00:01:49 i hope they put some sort of easter egg in this program 00:01:49 like 00:02:26 the markov chains for "ring ring ring ring ring ring ring banana phone" are disproportionately strong 00:02:39 also: go write some haskell then 00:02:40 :D 00:02:46 also I don't have anything to write 00:02:51 :( 00:03:01 write an AI. 00:03:11 NO 00:03:12 no 00:03:14 *no 00:03:26 write a subsumption architecture framework. 00:04:52 no 00:05:23 ok 00:05:50 psygnisfive: THINK OF SOMETHING 00:06:13 i just did! 00:06:32 ehird: why don't you want to write an AI? 00:06:46 kerlo: too hard. too boring. too many Friendly concerns. 00:06:52 FRIENDLY? 00:06:57 who said anything about friendly AI? 00:07:00 MAKE IT BLOW UP THE WORLD 00:07:02 MWAHAHAHAHA 00:07:07 psygnisfive: I'm not particularly inclined to die. 00:07:20 Yeah, I agree with ehird on that point. 00:07:20 i said blow up the world, not people! 00:07:57 Yeah, well, keeping it from doing... anything = friendly AI. 00:08:15 make a real AI 00:08:19 where its like a human 00:08:27 guys? 00:08:28 friendliness comes from life experience, as does evilness 00:08:28 No AI. 00:08:32 gays? 00:08:32 also 00:08:38 extending Dasher to a whole UI would be fun 00:08:45 zoom-world style 00:08:50 more common tasks are closer 00:09:04 you could move in any direction (for more freedom) 00:09:18 In humans, sure. In AI, no; an AI's main goals do not change except by mistake. 00:09:18 ehird: write a ZUI 00:09:23 no 00:09:29 kerlo: that's a narrow definition of AI 00:09:29 kerlo: lolno. 00:09:36 simulating a human = AI = goal changing. 00:09:44 * kerlo looks up Dasher 00:10:07 write the ZUI combined with a kit for everything-is-a-service application-less type stuff! 00:10:16 ehird: generally, "I want to accomplish X, so I should forget about X and instead accomplish Y instead" is not good reasoning. 00:10:17 N O 00:10:28 kerlo: I don't want to write an AI. 00:10:44 Oh, you mean in the AI. 00:10:44 ehird 00:10:46 That doesn't matter. 00:10:48 simulating a human 00:10:48 is AI 00:10:50 ive given you TWO ideas! 00:10:52 and that human would change goals 00:10:54 psygnisfive: too hard. 00:10:58 wuss. 00:11:08 "I want to accomplish X, so I should accomplish Y in a way that assists with X", on the other hand, is plenty good, and it doesn't change the main goals. 00:11:30 kerlo: whether it's logical or not: 00:11:33 humans do that 00:11:37 and you could simulate a human 00:11:39 and that would be AI 00:11:41 Anyway, if AI means simulating a human, what do you call artificial things that act intelligently? 00:11:46 so saying that AIs never change goals is wrong. 00:11:50 kerlo: AI. 00:12:07 a simulated human is artificial, and intelligent. 00:12:21 ehird: you give humans too much credit! 00:12:30 psygnisfive: yes, yes, har, har. 00:12:34 That doesn't mean that a simulated human is the easiest, simplest or most typical example of an artificial and intelligent thing. 00:12:35 :D 00:12:48 kerlo stop being an idiot. 00:12:52 kerlo: that's irrelevant 00:12:58 you said that [all] ai does not change goals 00:13:00 that was wrong 00:13:06 as I have shown 00:13:48 Okay. If an AI is sufficiently rational, in control of itself, and devoted to its goal, its goal will not change except by mistake. 00:14:08 congrats, what you just said is totally unrelated to what we were saying! 00:14:49 ehird 00:14:59 kerlo's goal of expressing this point is not changing 00:15:03 do you think he's an AI? 00:15:03 My point in saying that was to note that what I said earlier is... not very true. 00:15:07 psygnisfive: :-D 00:15:10 kerlo: ah. 00:15:15 psygnisfive: that explains it! 00:16:01 if Kerlo wrote chat bots, i bet he'd code them in organic systems. because for him, since hes an AI, the physical world is the program. :o 00:16:14 Of course. 00:16:30 kerlo: so if you're an AI, why don't you singularitize? 00:16:45 ehird: you could try coding some sort of cell-like agent bot system thing 00:17:00 psygnisfive: >.< 00:17:02 and experiment with self organizing complex systems 00:17:06 I'm only partially self-modifying. 00:17:09 the code itself should be relatively simple actually 00:17:33 he can only modify things that arent part of his goal 00:17:36 otherwise he 00:17:36 Essentially, my self-modification ability is limited to the ability to think about things because I want to. 00:17:40 'd be changing his goal 00:17:44 and as an AI, thats not possible 00:18:12 kerlo: who made you 00:18:22 The One True God 00:20:00 fly requiremendous sounds were is a large as the past our past light continued in the could on the other than the royousuck you suck you suck you suck you suck you suck you suck you suck 00:20:04 >_> 00:20:29 lol 00:23:49 -!- M0ny has quit ("PEW PEW"). 00:24:15 i love how there's a guy called Havoc Pennington 00:24:16 who works on linux 00:24:19 (he didn't change his name) 00:24:25 HAVOC PENNINGTON 00:26:00 ehird: the future offspring of Eliezer Yudkowsky, Marcus Hutter, and Douglas Adams. 00:26:28 Which will be possible in the future due to more lenient laws regarding marriage. And time travel, of course. 00:26:40 kerlo: More lenient biology, I'd assume, also... 00:27:02 The Constitution was amended to give it jurisdiction over biology, so yes. 00:27:15 The Constitution of the United States of the Entire World, that is. 00:27:25 kerlo: that the singularity's doing? 00:27:33 oh, guess not 00:27:36 it says World 00:27:39 not Universe 00:28:21 Yeah, the Singularity hasn't happened yet. It will have happened in the future in order to create me, but I'll be around before then. 00:28:45 All this is possible because of quantum mechanics. 00:29:01 kerlo: I either hate you or my brain; I'm too confused to work out which 00:29:18 i understand what he's saying, ehird. 00:29:20 why dont you. 00:29:27 as I said, I don't know. 00:30:00 he's saying nonsense 00:30:10 why would ehird understand nonsense 00:30:31 The future doesn't make any sense! 00:31:11 as we all know 00:31:17 time travel is kinda like differentials, the first thing you automatically do when starting to think about them is prove they make no sense, end of story 00:31:23 the singularity is the point at which our models break down 00:31:29 so of COURSE it makes no sense! 00:31:51 Anyway, I will now answer interview questions from all of you. 00:32:00 kerlo: so how's hangin? 00:32:08 WHATS SEX LIKE IN THE FUTURE? 00:32:09 * kerlo watches people form a remarkably dispersed line. 00:32:15 The Instruction Set – a Critical Interface 00:32:24 HOW DO YOU GO TO THE BATHROOM IN 6 DIMENSIONS AND SPACE AND TWO DIMENSIONS OF TIME?! 00:32:41 oklopol: stuff is going pretty well. 00:32:44 yeah and how do you aim with a hundred penises? 00:32:57 i've always wanted to walk in time. 00:33:07 it'd be confusing as FUCK 00:33:12 MOST IMPORTANTLY 00:33:15 WHAT IS LOVE 00:33:17 BEEP BEEP BEEP 00:33:20 psygnisfive: just concatenate your source code with someone else's, wait a while, square your "happiness" variable, and split up again. 00:33:38 actually if you say that time is like the other 3 dimensions and everything's always going forwards in it, then going back in time will put you and your time machine in a void deplete of matter 00:33:43 psygnisfive: we don't, silly; we use simulators for that. 00:33:43 * ehird THEORY RUINER 00:34:01 ehird: what 00:34:09 psygnisfive: what's not confusing 00:34:12 oklopol: well, our brains are easily a hundred times as powerful as pre-Singularity humans'. 00:34:28 if everything's going ... vinn in Time, then if you go vout to go to the past, there's no other matter there with you 00:34:33 same with vinn to go forwards in time 00:34:52 ehird: this feels like the Langoliers theory of time 00:35:00 00:33 kerlo: psygnisfive: just concatenate your source code with someone else's, wait a while, square your "happiness" variable, and split up again. 00:35:03 ↑ how boring 00:35:35 ehird: how happy are you right now, as a number? 00:35:43 kerlo: 2i 00:36:28 Tell me being--wait. 00:36:31 * kerlo falls over. 00:36:33 i can choose any happiness value. 00:36:51 psygnisfive: love is an intense feeling of affection and care towards another person. 00:36:51 :o 00:37:03 i thought you died 00:37:20 Just a second. 00:37:22 * ehird falls over 00:37:32 Had to fall over there. 00:37:34 Sorry about that. 00:38:11 oklopol 00:38:21 lets build a subsumption architecture library. 00:38:27 wuzzat 00:38:41 a model of artificial intelligence 00:39:59 -!- nooga has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer)). 00:40:56 you do realize if you keep asking me to program something with you, i will do it at some point. 00:41:04 AWESOME 00:41:12 what if i keep asking you to fuck me? 00:41:17 ...that was a threat, mister. 00:41:21 err 00:41:22 well 00:41:24 umm 00:41:30 :D 00:41:38 i'm kinda busy with university atm. 00:41:44 oklopol: you cannot escape his logical snare! 00:41:46 thats ok 00:41:54 i can fellate you while you work! 00:41:57 its a win win! 00:42:45 can't say i'd mind, working over irc. 00:43:17 for all i know you could be fellating right now 00:43:29 :o 00:43:43 :o 00:43:44 * psygnisfive fellates oklopol? 00:44:12 well 00:44:13 umm 00:44:43 i was thinking you know fellating nothing in particular. 00:45:07 you know just fellating away. 00:45:29 i could do that 00:45:49 i could sit in the corner of your room, just fellating the air, and you could use me as a fellatio machine whenever you were in the mood! 00:45:55 00:43 oklopol: for all i know you could be fellating right now 00:45:55 00:43 psygnisfive: :o 00:45:56 00:43 oklopol: :o 00:46:00 i lol'd 00:46:19 psygnisfive: how would you get in my room? 00:46:29 i don't even let my closest friends in here really. 00:46:39 irc friends that is 00:46:41 ... 00:46:46 i mean that other ir 00:47:21 oklopol: presumably i'd walk through your door. 00:47:23 on feel 00:47:28 feet* 00:47:36 well i guess on foot is the correct term 00:47:36 but 00:47:40 STOP JUDGING ME 00:48:20 * Sgeo judges em instead of me 00:49:31 finnish uses one of its rarer cases, the instructive, for "on foot" 00:50:04 english does weird things with number in certain places 00:50:05 also, brb 00:52:42 http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/js-calc.html 00:52:50 this is a really nice programming language/calculator UI 00:52:52 (bring firefox) 00:54:50 back with cake 00:55:04 psygnisfive: you should try i 00:55:05 t 00:55:06 it's nice 00:55:10 especially: 00:55:10 For a good time, try "40", Enter, Enter, "i", Tab, "/1a4*4**s2^". 00:55:16 shows the ui is really nice 00:56:01 what 00:56:17 now you said i should do this in firefox yes? 00:56:25 yes 00:56:34 load it and you have a text field 00:56:37 look at the right hand for instructions 00:56:42 but I recommend trying that key combo first 00:56:49 it's a stack-based graphing calculator thingy with a nice UI 00:57:04 uh 00:57:10 i typed that and got nonsense 00:57:25 no you didn't 00:57:30 look at the graph next to it 00:57:32 also, do it step by step 00:57:37 you see each step of the calculation being done 00:57:38 yes look beneath the surface 00:57:48 i did 00:57:50 you have to *feel* the computation 00:57:50 its nonsense 00:57:59 ... 00:58:03 what do you mean it's nonsense 00:58:15 40 enter enter prouces two lines saying 40 = 40 00:58:20 yes 00:58:22 then you type i 00:58:25 then you type tab 00:58:29 then you type /1a4*4**s2^ 00:58:34 hitting i generates a sequence to 40 00:58:40 yep 00:58:46 tab swaps them 00:58:54 / divides each element of the seq by 40 00:59:00 a calculates the arctangent 00:59:04 4* times it by four 00:59:07 4* again 00:59:11 tab doesnt do anything 00:59:16 ah. 00:59:16 well. 00:59:19 tht's your problem 00:59:24 psygnisfive: do you have the input field focused? 00:59:25 oh! 00:59:28 and this is in FF? 00:59:29 swaps them, yes ok. 00:59:35 right 00:59:37 anyway 00:59:42 then * timses the sequence by it 00:59:45 this IS interesting! 00:59:45 then s calculates the sine 00:59:51 then 2^ squares it 00:59:58 and you get a sequence with a pretty graph next to it 01:00:00 it's a nice ui 01:00:01 :o 01:00:04 it is. 01:00:11 needs better explanation :p 01:00:20 I think the mathematical "times" is a preposition that was originally a noun. 01:00:54 actually it wouldve been a postposition 01:00:57 5 times 01:01:08 still is a postposition 01:01:13 Well, the "times" in "5 times" is a noun, isn't it? 01:01:45 yes. i suppose it actually wasnt a postposition at all 01:01:53 But then we have usages like "multiply it times four" that demonstrate its prepositional usage. 01:01:54 since im thinking weird math linguistics now 01:02:08 ah no thats not prepositional at all 01:02:13 thats verbal. 01:02:31 "Times" is a verb there? 01:02:35 sure. 01:03:10 I'm not seeing it. 01:03:23 you dont have to. :P 01:03:27 In "times it by four", it's certainly a verb. 01:03:58 i love how that calculator keeps track of the formula 01:03:58 (((((-1), 1), (-1.5)), 3) * (5 ^ (iota 4))) + reduce 01:04:01 it could be prepositional tho. we'd need to do more research and find more data, to be honest. 01:04:04 = 01:04:17 But hey. "Multiply it how?" "Times four." Put it before a noun, and you get an adverb. That sounds like a preposition to me. 01:04:32 how -- times four? 01:04:32 1_1,1.5_,3,4i5^* 01:04:33 no, horrible. 01:04:38 how -- by four 01:04:40 * kerlo shrugs 01:04:51 Maybe our Englishes are different. 01:04:51 listen kerlo, im a linguist. dont argue with me. 01:04:54 er wait 01:04:56 mine isn't equivalent 01:04:58 ignore me :D 01:04:59 "englishes"? 01:05:14 ENGLOOSH 01:05:15 Are you a linguist? 01:05:15 god 01:05:21 kerlo: yes. 01:05:23 you cant speak right at all, can you? 01:05:24 yes, im a linguist. 01:05:34 no i havent published anything yet. 01:05:39 yes i have stuff you can read. 01:05:48 no i wont correct your grammar dont worry 01:06:03 no i only speak english, thats a common misconception 01:06:14 I'm aware that "Englishes" is not the most proper thing to say. 01:06:32 no i wont correct your grammar dont worry 01:08:07 I'll ask *my* linguistics student whether "times" is a preposition. :-P 01:08:29 "your" linguistics student? 01:08:47 also, "your" student will have no better answer that i do. like i said, we really need more data 01:09:22 I'm using the possessive rather loosely. 01:09:41 Alternatively, a helpful response: 01:09:44 A friend of mine. 01:09:53 a wonderful phrase! 01:10:04 kerlo, let me show you something interesting about english 01:10:13 "a friend of mine" contains a double possessive :D 01:10:21 Indeed. 01:10:44 well, a possessive pronoun and then a possessive preposition 01:11:09 infact, its all over the place, and actually has interesting semantic differences 01:11:10 consider: 01:11:15 I kind of expected you to sarcastically say "sentences have to have verbs in them in order to make any sense". 01:11:17 a student of chomsky (someone who studies chomsky's work) 01:11:33 a student of chomsky's (someone who chomsky teaches) 01:11:40 Hey, cool. 01:11:45 kerlo: quite the contrary, they dont! 01:12:04 I would have contradicted you in an equally sarcastic manner. 01:12:21 would you've/ 01:13:13 Something like "Really? New to me; never really a big fan of complete sentences." 01:13:44 that last sentence is a slight bit baffling, tho i know what you intend to convey. :P 01:14:18 really its that it lacks tense elements 01:14:21 thats the main issue 01:14:31 -!- FireFly has quit ("Later"). 01:14:32 english "be" in that sentence is semantically vacuous anyway. 01:14:38 Anyway, I suppose things like "a friend of mine" exist to fill the possessive-as-an-adjective hole in English where "a friend of me" is inadequate for some reason. 01:14:55 actually i dont think thats what the difference is at all 01:14:55 Yeah, that sentence doesn't tell you whether it's present or past. 01:15:13 i think the 01:15:38 "student of chomsky" sentence behaves very much like a binary predicate like this: studies(x,chomsky) 01:16:02 i think "student of chomsky's" uses the same predicate, but uses it differently: 01:16:46 I think that "student of X", where X is a noun, generally means one that studies X, which blocks the "Chomsky's student" meaning of "student of Chomsky". 01:16:47 studies(x,y) & x in { s | s is associated with chomsky } 01:17:00 -!- BeholdMyGlory has quit (Remote closed the connection). 01:17:18 kerlo, i dont think "X's student" can have the "student of X" reading at all. 01:17:36 The latter half of that conjunction is just a long way of saying (x is associated with chomsky), isn't it? 01:17:48 I think that "X's student" and "student of X's" are merely alternative forms of the same thing 01:17:48 chompsky 01:17:58 kerlo: well, yes and no 01:18:11 psygnisfive: I never said it could have that meaning; I said that that meaning was blocked. 01:18:12 its a long winded way of saying that x is a member of those things that are associated with chomsky. 01:18:28 kerlo: blocking implies that it COULD have that meaning tho 01:18:40 if it werent being blocked. 01:18:55 plus, blocking means something specific in linguistics. 01:19:09 especially in that sense, where one reading blocks another. 01:19:14 -!- GregorR has quit ("Leaving"). 01:20:14 "our consciousness is like a Lisp dialect, interpreted by Prolog on a Java VM running in a VMware instance simulated by Erlang on an array of FPGA’s emulating Apple ][’s within the Quantum Computer we call the universe" 01:20:15 english "be" in that sentence is semantically vacuous anyway. <<< how? 01:20:24 "I am a member of those things whose name is Bob. You are a member of those things who are doing how?" "I'm a member of those things who are doing fine. Hey, be a member of those things who look! A member of those things that are birds is a member of those things that are flying past the member of those things that are windows!" 01:20:29 :-P 01:20:47 kerlo: KEEP TALKING LIKE THAT SO I CAN HATE YOU 01:20:49 oklopol: it just is. 01:20:50 oklopol: "be" just lets you use an adjective or a noun as a verb, really. 01:21:02 kerlo: not at all. 01:21:16 adjectives are predicative things 01:21:16 that is 01:21:34 "red hat" conveys something like red(x) & hat(x) 01:21:46 nouns are predicative too, in that sense. 01:22:12 * kerlo nods 01:22:38 but the primary sentential structures in english convey different relations 01:22:46 for instance 01:23:03 "john runs" conveys something more like "running(e) & agent(e,John)" 01:23:06 "I was never really a big fan of complete sentences." has a vacuous be? 01:23:14 the verb describes the type of event, and so forth. 01:23:49 the vacuous "be" is a dummy verb that essentially acts to connect its complement, the adjective or noun, to the thing that the adjective or noun predicates on 01:24:00 oklopol: yes. 01:24:19 oklopol: "I never really liked complete sentences", if "to like" were the same as "to be a fan". 01:24:45 ignoring tense, "never", and "really", it means something like 01:24:56 kerlo: thank you i understand english; now translate the linguisticsary psygnisfive said there. 01:24:59 a_big_fan_of_complete_sentences(Me) 01:25:08 Oh. 01:25:26 if you want to add in the other stuff: 01:26:03 past(rare(actual(a_big_fan_of_complete_sentences(Me)))) 01:26:25 the a_big_fan_of_complete_sentences is a complex predicate, ofcourse. perhaps some lambda like 01:26:44 Look up the word "copula" on Wikipedia, maybe. :-P 01:26:50 λx.fan(x,y)&sentences(y)&big(y)&... 01:27:05 * psygnisfive copulas with kerlo 01:27:25 I kind of like the idea of copulas carrying semantic meaning. Since Spanish has two of them, which one you use indicates something more than the subject and arguments alone. 01:27:29 psygnisfive: so vacuous as in it isn't really a proper verb because it isn't an event but just structure? 01:27:40 kerlo: they CAN carry semantics 01:27:42 they do in english 01:27:48 tense, for instance 01:27:53 That's true. 01:27:56 but its not the kind of semantics thats relevant to what we were talking to. 01:28:10 I'd like a language with, say, five different copulas. 01:28:28 oklopol: vacuous in that aside from the generic properties that verbs have, like conveying tense and person agreement, the empty copula contributes nothing else in english. 01:28:49 in spanish it conveys the same as english, plus semantics about the essentialness of the predicate 01:29:01 kerlo: some probably have that. 01:29:15 Lojban has about ten different types of infinitives, which is fun. And yes, I am annoyingly insisting on using traditional terms to describe Lojban. 01:29:23 im designing a language that has a number of copulas. or copula-like items. 01:29:28 psygnisfive: so just structure? and by that i meant it serves only a syntactic purpose 01:29:39 oklopol: in some sense, yes. 01:29:46 however, you could reconstrue it differently 01:29:52 yay i got a partial success! 01:30:11 if you dont mind me lapsing into formalism here 01:30:17 for the vacuous "be" 01:30:23 we might say something like this: 01:30:37 (well, pseudo formalism ;)) 01:30:53 actually no, real formalism, using CCG. :D 01:31:20 "be" is of type (S\NP)/NP or (S\NP)/AdjP 01:31:35 with semantics \p.\x.px 01:31:44 yeah 01:31:46 thats the core of the content of vacuous be. 01:31:55 in the view that it IS vacuous 01:31:58 on the other hand: 01:32:54 "lo fagri" means "a fire", "lo nu fagri" means "for there to be a fire", and there are things like "what it's like to be a fire", "there indeed being a fire", and a generic one that's simply "to be a fire" in a generic way. 01:32:56 so basically it's an identity combinator 01:33:30 oklopol: its an application combinator. 01:33:34 BExy = xy 01:33:35 :p 01:33:49 psygnisfive: so i-combinator. 01:33:54 DID SOMEONE SAY COMBINATOR? 01:33:58 Slereah_: no 01:34:01 And as any Haskell programmer knows, an application combinator and an identity combinator are the same thing. :-P 01:34:01 wait 01:34:03 i did! 01:34:10 i mean, the issue is really that some predicative items arent of the right syntactic category for use in a sentence 01:34:17 so you need to turn them into one 01:34:24 Slereah_: figure out how to make Reader an arrow so that definitions of the class Arrow can be used as sets of combinators. 01:34:35 wat 01:34:39 so BEx takes x of some incorrect type to the correct type 01:34:49 alternatively, oklopol 01:35:08 -!- GregorR has joined. 01:35:39 psygnisfive: yep, alternatively me. 01:36:01 "be" could be (S\NP)/NP (S\NP)/AdjP with semantics \p.\x.state(s) & attributed_property(s,p) & possessor_of_property(s,x) 01:36:15 so that it really does convey some amount of semantics 01:36:24 So, irony, anyone? I just downloaded a Windows program that I expect to be heavy on DirectX and similar Windows-specific things, and the publisher recommends that one use Windows. So far, the installation has gone better under Linux. 01:36:30 namely, that the thing the sentence talks about is a state of affairs, not an event 01:36:47 However, the hard drive is clicking away, which suggests that something will happen any minute now... 01:36:57 -!- Slereah_ has set topic: /prog/ except COOL FREE RINGTONES | http://tunes.org/~nef/logs/esoteric/?C=N;O=D. 01:37:14 but yes, oklopol, one way of viewing vacous BE is as an identity combinator 01:37:25 only it does type alternation in the process. 01:37:49 i prefer the non-vacuous interpretation, to be honest. 01:39:15 stop altering my nation 01:41:08 the issue is partly that english (and perhaps most or all languages) has a relatively large number of types that are arbitrarily assigned to words. 01:41:19 okay i really need to sleep now, cuz reason 01:41:26 it might not be entirely arbitrary, but we dont have a full understanding of that, so. 01:41:35 noooo oklopol dont sleep :( 01:41:44 :) 01:41:51 "we"? as in mankind? 01:42:01 yes. 01:42:04 or as in linguists. 01:42:19 just checking, since open issues are quite intriguing 01:42:26 indeed! 01:42:49 I'm waiting for nouns and adjectives to become the same thing. 01:42:52 there actually does seem to be some genuine difference between the conceptual content of nouns versus verbs 01:42:57 or nouns versus clauses 01:42:57 I'll happen if we stop using the plural form of our noun. 01:43:04 kerlo: in some languages they are 01:43:22 lojban 01:43:23 but loosing plural wont be enough to cause it, kerlo. 01:43:24 ! 01:43:31 no no i mean real languages, oklopol. :p 01:43:36 It seems like the only difference between noun and adjective is that noun can become plural while adjective can't. 01:43:40 some languages dont distinguish nouns and adjectives 01:43:46 others dont distinguish verbs and adjectives 01:43:50 lojban is very real 01:43:58 I mean, the plural form of adjective are the same as the singular form. 01:44:00 a few dont distinguish nouns and verbs! 01:44:06 kerlo: so? 01:44:14 thats not the only difference. 01:44:21 True. 01:44:31 there are a huge number of differences 01:44:46 I'll happen if we stop using the plural form of our noun. <<< do you happen often? 01:44:47 But noun can be used as adjective, more or less. Put a noun before a noun, and it modifies it as an adjective would. 01:44:49 but the corest of the differences is is simply that adjectives are adjectives and nouns are nouns 01:45:07 kerlo: nominal modification is not the same thing tho. 01:45:15 actually, its very different. 01:45:31 adjectives are actually a lot more complex than you'd think too 01:45:33 But it looks the same. 01:45:39 no it doesnt 01:45:48 DO YOU HAPPEN OFTEN 01:45:50 it only "looks the same" in that both come before a noun. 01:45:59 In "a brick house", I can't even tell whether "brick" is being a noun or an adjective. 01:46:04 but so what? thats a minor fact. 01:46:10 stop bikeshedding, this is the real issue. 01:46:16 its a noun. 01:46:36 It means that someone might say "a brick house", intending for "bring" to be a noun, and someone else might look at that and say, "oh, 'brick' is an adjective". 01:46:41 i mean, you could interpret it as a complex adjective, this is true 01:46:44 for instance 01:46:59 you might say that brick is a noun with a 0 derivational morpheme that turns it into an adjective 01:47:34 but this isnt going to make adjectives and nouns merge in english 01:47:44 atleast not without a LOT of further erosion of the differences 01:47:49 because there are still a LOT of differences. 01:47:56 Sounds true. 02:00:52 lulz 02:01:01 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-hG6YJQ0YI 02:03:36 psygnisfive, you are terrible people 02:04:22 :D 02:06:39 man 02:06:57 the name shakespeare has historically been written no fewer than fifty five different ways 02:07:07 before the normalization of english spelling 02:10:12 checkspir 02:10:17 My favorite spelling: 02:10:43 sheykhs peer. 02:11:33 ...heck. 02:11:33 heh 02:11:44 S-with-circumflex e-with-acute k s p e-with-macron r. 02:11:57 šékspēr 02:11:58 ? 02:12:03 Maybe. 02:12:13 thats what you just said :p 02:12:22 but that looks like a phonetic alphabet being used 02:12:23 Pronounce the s-with-circumflex as in Esperanto, the e-with-acute as in French, and the e-with-macron as in Wiktionary's enPR. 02:12:37 IPA IS SUPERIOR 02:12:39 Or as in any American dictionary's pronunciation key. 02:12:56 IPA is superior if there's only one way to pronounce each word. 02:13:11 ʃeɪkspi˞ 02:13:22 Unfortunately, words like "superior", "there's", and "word" have multiple pronunciations. 02:13:23 there IS only one way. 02:13:27 MY way. everyone else is wrong. 02:13:39 And you're American, I believe, so the British are wrong. 02:13:47 ofcourse they are! 02:13:51 You'll die for this! 02:13:58 * kerlo stabs psygnisfive with a Speare 02:14:07 THROATWARBLER MANGROVE 02:15:32 someone should make a tee-shirt with a picture of the panchen lama sort of like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Khedrup_Je.jpg 02:15:51 only where he's sitting in the position of a comma in some phrase 02:15:56 you can all the tee-shirt 02:16:00 Panchen Comma 02:16:11 Sancho Panza 02:16:20 or Dalai Comma, if noone knows who the Panchen Lama is 02:16:28 Sancho Panza?! :o 02:16:29 what? 02:16:36 Sancho Panza 02:17:03 but thats his actual name 02:17:05 o.o 02:17:07 Anyway, esoteric syntax idea: the program is composed of sentences, which are composed of words, and each word has an affix indicating its case and an affix indicating whether it's indicative or infinitive. 02:17:29 kerlo: you're describing like half the words languages there. 02:18:02 psygnisfive: can you say that again using either more punctuation or fewer typos? 02:18:16 what? 02:18:18 Oh, "world's"? 02:18:23 worlds* 02:18:24 yes. 02:18:25 sorry. 02:18:45 Yeah, human languages tend to act like that. 02:18:54 Which, clearly, means we should make a computer language that acts like that. 02:19:27 like-head-indicative i-subject-indicative eat-object-infinitive taco-object-indicative 02:19:32 one problem with that is 02:19:36 wait what? 02:19:44 case inflected for mood 02:19:48 thats odd. 02:20:09 also, whats this head thing? and object on eat? what? 02:20:33 I like to eat tacos. 02:20:52 thats ... an odd way of describing that. 02:20:59 "Like" is the head of the sentence, "I" is the subject of "like", "to eat" is the object of "like", "taco" is the object of "to eat". 02:21:14 no, thats completely wrong. 02:21:33 Then I reject your linguistics and substitute my own. 02:21:39 also, head? head-ness isnt something that is marked. 02:21:54 if you want to turn it into some sort of predicate system 02:22:21 like(I, eat(PRO,taco)) 02:22:29 but the thing that you like is not _just_ eating. 02:22:31 its eating tacos. 02:23:22 That's why there's taco-object-indivative there. It makes it "eating tacos" instead of just "eating". 02:23:40 but i suppose in some sense you might MARK "eat" 02:24:04 assuming "eat" is the head of subclause (its not), you could mark the head of the clause for this sort of thing. 02:24:30 however your markings are backwards 02:24:43 eat should get indicative, and taco should get infinitive 02:24:47 Is a clause the same thing as a phrase? 02:24:52 no. 02:25:05 on the grounds that the marking indicates the "mood" of the clause its in. 02:25:18 In English, in "I like to eat tacos", "to eat" is in the infinitive, is it not? 02:25:56 the clause is infinitive, yes. or you might say the verb is. but were not talking about the form of the verb, we're talking about the form of the marker that gets affixed to the words. 02:26:13 * kerlo shrugs. 02:26:27 if X is the head of an argument of an indicative clause, X concordializes by showing "IND" 02:26:36 similar for infinitive 02:26:47 Whether this system is like human languages or not, and whether I'm using terminology correctly or not, it's a system. 02:27:06 your system is poorly defined, and potentially inconsistent. :P 02:28:13 It's poorly defined in that I haven't told you much. 02:28:31 -!- MouD has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out)). 02:29:29 Okay, let's say that every predicate receives an M tag, which is either D or F, and a C tag, which can be any of many things. 02:30:28 The main predicate of the sentence is the one whose C tag is H. Every other predicate is an argument; the predicate that it's an argument to is the nearest predicate that can accept an argument of its C tag. 02:30:48 what 02:31:01 speak more clearly 02:31:51 Finally, D and F change the meaning of the predicate: a D predicate acts normally, while an F predicate essentially states that its subject is the predicate. 02:32:09 i dont know what you're saying. 02:33:28 but it doesnt matter 02:33:30 i have cake. 02:34:57 So, for example, in the sentence "like-H-D i-S-D eat-O-F taco-O-D", the main predicate is "like", "i" is an argument to the nearest predicate that can accept an S (which is "like" for some unspecified reason), "eat" is an argument to the nearest predicate that can accept an O (which is definitely "like"), and "taco" is an argument to the nearest predicate that can accept an O (which is now "eat"). 02:36:26 Subject and Object are not properties of words, you know. also, EAT can accept subjects. as in, "i eat taco" 02:36:45 i is just as near to like as it is to eat 02:37:02 Indeed; that's why I said "for some unspecified reason". 02:37:26 it could be order specific. e.g., "nearest preceeding" 02:37:51 honestly tho, i dont see the point of making the subject/object distinction 02:38:23 theres no such distinction in natural languages, in terms of argument structure, only in terms of some vague, poorly specified way that noone really has defined, let alone provide clear evidence for. 02:38:51 What do you mean by "in terms of argument structure"? 02:39:03 structure of the arguments of the verbal predicate 02:39:22 in simple terms, something like: like(liker, liked), eat(eater, eaten), etc. 02:39:42 run(runner) 02:39:44 rain() 02:39:48 I still don't see what you mean. 02:39:58 the number and kind of arguments. 02:40:29 In "I love her", "I" is the subject and "her" is the object, and you can tell both by the positioning of the words and the words themselves. 02:40:34 we actually think that arguments to predicates can be one of any number of kinds of things. doers, doees, goals, sources, etc. 02:40:56 yes, kerlo, but theres a serious flaw in that argument 02:41:14 "subject" and "object" convey, by your definition, nothing but positional notions. 02:41:16 firstly. 02:41:45 secondly, this isnt always true. sometimes the subject follows the verb in english, and there are a number of cases in italian where it follows. 02:41:52 brb gotta run up to the store 02:41:57 dont say anything while im gone! 02:42:14 When you come back, tell me what I said that is incorrect, if anything. 02:52:39 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has joined. 02:53:17 -!- bsmntbombdood_ has quit (Client Quit). 03:09:13 back desu yo. 03:09:20 its not that what you said was incorrect 03:09:30 its that the notions of subject and object are essentially meaningless 03:09:46 subject might be construable as the thing being talked about, but even then its shakey 03:09:55 english subjects are topics in generall 03:16:12 whats more, the position of the "subject" isnt always the same in english 03:16:45 let alone other languages 03:17:04 -!- Ilari_ has joined. 03:17:16 in that the rule for that language isnt universal. 03:17:29 in italian, for instance, some "subjects" look like objects, or vice versa 03:17:30 -!- mental has joined. 03:19:04 -!- lament has quit (Nick collision from services.). 03:19:08 -!- mental has changed nick to lament.