Changing the subject a bit -- although digital signatures from Verisign and
others are available for IE and Navigator, they should not be used for this
list.

The message below was digitally signed, and the first message I received
that it should not be trusted as the "sender's address" did not match the
certificate.  After looking deeper, the sender's address did match - but the
"sender" in this case is the Listserv.

IMHO, Listers should be encouraged to not use digital signatures on the
list.  There are many who cannot read these unless they have the capability
to verify the cert.  Unfortunately, more e-mail clients cannot do this, than
can...

Anyway - for those who missed the message... (40th Anniversary...)

-----Original Message-----
From: Tom Lang <"[log in to unmask]"@POP3.CONCENTRIC.NET>
To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thursday, October 23, 1997 9:58 AM
Subject: Re: Off-topic: 40th anniversary of Sputnik


>Jeff Kell wrote:
>
>> > Wirt's comment reminds me of a story I heard a few years ago about
>> > computers and their ability to understand natural languages.
>>    [...snip...]
>> > The phrase chosen was taken from the New American Standard Bible, Mark
>> > 14:38b, "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."  I don't know
>> > what the Russian translation was, but when it was translated back to
>> > English, it came out as, "the vodka is good, but the meat has gone
>> > bad."
>>
>> One more practical example from the early AI days was:
>>
>>    "Time flies like an arrow."
>>
>> Analyzed syntactically, this can result on a few meanings, for example:
>>                     noun   verb    prep.     obj.p.
>> (a) The passage of <time> <flies> <like> an <arrow>.
>>                  adj.    noun                       verb
>> (b) The insects "<time> <flies>" have an affinity (<like>) for arrows.
>>                                 verb   obj
>> (c) When determining airspeed, <time> <flies> in a similar manner
>> (<like>) you would measure <an arrow>.
>>
>> I've always thought this one of the better examples of the difficulty
>> imposed on any natural language recognition by the ambiguous nature of
>> the syntax and semantics of language.
>>
>> Jeff Kell <[log in to unmask]>
>
>Jeff, I have to disagree with your statement about "... any natural
language
>....".
>
>>From my early AI days, the example I remember was "Fruit flies like a
>banana". But so do oranges, pineapples, etc. But fruit flies also like to
>eat bananas.
>
>The grammar of the natural (ie human) language imposes the syntax and
>semantic rules. Grammars are either 'context sensitive' or 'context free'.
>The english language is 'context free', and AFAIK is the only 'context
free'
>natural language. But that's where the fun begins.
>
>Any 'context sensitive' natural language as the host, will work because the
>grammar imposes the syntactic and semantic rules, ie you cannot have 2
>semantic rules for 1 syntax rule.
>
>The problem is that since english is used as an international business and
>'computer' language, it is therefore impossible to implement the full
>grammar, and thereby the full vocabulary, in a 'natural language system'
>using english as the host. So all the software currently on the market,
>using english as the host, is limited for this reason.
>
>But it's also the fun of the english language. Did you hear the one about
>....
>
>Kindest Regards
>Tom Lang.
>