<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_08_2238248</id>
	<title>Monkeys With Syntax</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1260283560000</datestamp>
	<htmltext><a href="mailto:jamie@slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">jamie</a> writes <i>"The Campbell's monkey has a vocabulary with at least six types of basic call, but new research published in the PNAS claims that they <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/science/08monkey.html">combine them and string them together</a> to communicate new meanings. (Login may be required on the NY Times site.) For example, the word for 'leopard' gets an '-oo' suffix to mean 'unseen predator.' But when that word is repeated after 'come over here,' the combination means 'Timber!' &mdash; a warning of falling trees. Scientists have known for some time that vervet monkeys have different warning calls for different predators &mdash; eagle, leopard, and snake &mdash; but unlike the Campbell's monkeys, vervets don't combine those calls to create new meanings, a key component of syntax. The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>jamie writes " The Campbell 's monkey has a vocabulary with at least six types of basic call , but new research published in the PNAS claims that they combine them and string them together to communicate new meanings .
( Login may be required on the NY Times site .
) For example , the word for 'leopard ' gets an '-oo ' suffix to mean 'unseen predator .
' But when that word is repeated after 'come over here, ' the combination means 'Timber !
'    a warning of falling trees .
Scientists have known for some time that vervet monkeys have different warning calls for different predators    eagle , leopard , and snake    but unlike the Campbell 's monkeys , vervets do n't combine those calls to create new meanings , a key component of syntax .
The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>jamie writes "The Campbell's monkey has a vocabulary with at least six types of basic call, but new research published in the PNAS claims that they combine them and string them together to communicate new meanings.
(Login may be required on the NY Times site.
) For example, the word for 'leopard' gets an '-oo' suffix to mean 'unseen predator.
' But when that word is repeated after 'come over here,' the combination means 'Timber!
' — a warning of falling trees.
Scientists have known for some time that vervet monkeys have different warning calls for different predators — eagle, leopard, and snake — but unlike the Campbell's monkeys, vervets don't combine those calls to create new meanings, a key component of syntax.
The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586</id>
	<title>Monkey syntax errors aren't so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But when they throw "exceptions", look out!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But when they throw " exceptions " , look out !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But when they throw "exceptions", look out!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30379140</id>
	<title>They already warn each other...</title>
	<author>Gordonjcp</author>
	<datestamp>1259608740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... about falling objects when they're collecting nuts and fruit from trees, thus ensuring each other's safety.</p><p>Before long, we will discover the monkey words for "method statement" and "risk assessment", but by then it will be too late.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... about falling objects when they 're collecting nuts and fruit from trees , thus ensuring each other 's safety.Before long , we will discover the monkey words for " method statement " and " risk assessment " , but by then it will be too late .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... about falling objects when they're collecting nuts and fruit from trees, thus ensuring each other's safety.Before long, we will discover the monkey words for "method statement" and "risk assessment", but by then it will be too late.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642</id>
	<title>Is the word for "leopard" really "tree"?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1260300720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have an alternative hypothesis to the one presented in the summary.  (Haven't RTFA, fwiw).</p><p>I propose that the word for "leopard" really is the word for "tree".  Why?</p><p>Well, suppose the suffix "-oo" means "get up into", and the "come[s] over here" part refers to the trees, not the monkeys.</p><p>Observe that getting up in the trees is a good way to avoid leopards, and that when you yell "Timber!", it's because trees are coming your way.  That way, what the monkeys say should still produce the same behaviour as with the summary's language, but the words seem to have more stable, consistent meanings.</p><p>If this were not the case, one might expect the monkeys to say "leopard + comes-over-here" and "tree + comes-over-here", or something similarly systematic.</p><p>Also, observe how (human) children apply simple and logical (but sometimes wrong) rules to construct sentence patterns; something like the thought "hey, the expression "you're going down" must mean that relative to you, I'm going up.  Yeah! "I'm going up, you [word]!"".  Key point being: simple rules, a consistent inverse relationship between up and down.  Wouldn't it make sense that monkeys have a similarly simple and consistent language?</p><p>Note also that the monkeys signal different behaviours when they observe or suspect eagles and snakes.  The word for "eagle" might really mean "duck and cover", and the word for "snake" might really mean "stand really still, on your toes, and look down", since that is how they handle these different kinds of predators.</p><p>It might also be more effective to say "get up in the trees" and "get up in the trees" versus "there's a leopard coming" and "there's a [different non-climber] coming"; that way, you can get away with a smaller vocabulary, a more restricted vocal apparatus (since you don't need many different sounds), etc.  Just cheaper overall.</p><p>My cents tw-oo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have an alternative hypothesis to the one presented in the summary .
( Have n't RTFA , fwiw ) .I propose that the word for " leopard " really is the word for " tree " .
Why ? Well , suppose the suffix " -oo " means " get up into " , and the " come [ s ] over here " part refers to the trees , not the monkeys.Observe that getting up in the trees is a good way to avoid leopards , and that when you yell " Timber !
" , it 's because trees are coming your way .
That way , what the monkeys say should still produce the same behaviour as with the summary 's language , but the words seem to have more stable , consistent meanings.If this were not the case , one might expect the monkeys to say " leopard + comes-over-here " and " tree + comes-over-here " , or something similarly systematic.Also , observe how ( human ) children apply simple and logical ( but sometimes wrong ) rules to construct sentence patterns ; something like the thought " hey , the expression " you 're going down " must mean that relative to you , I 'm going up .
Yeah ! " I 'm going up , you [ word ] ! " " .
Key point being : simple rules , a consistent inverse relationship between up and down .
Would n't it make sense that monkeys have a similarly simple and consistent language ? Note also that the monkeys signal different behaviours when they observe or suspect eagles and snakes .
The word for " eagle " might really mean " duck and cover " , and the word for " snake " might really mean " stand really still , on your toes , and look down " , since that is how they handle these different kinds of predators.It might also be more effective to say " get up in the trees " and " get up in the trees " versus " there 's a leopard coming " and " there 's a [ different non-climber ] coming " ; that way , you can get away with a smaller vocabulary , a more restricted vocal apparatus ( since you do n't need many different sounds ) , etc .
Just cheaper overall.My cents tw-oo ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have an alternative hypothesis to the one presented in the summary.
(Haven't RTFA, fwiw).I propose that the word for "leopard" really is the word for "tree".
Why?Well, suppose the suffix "-oo" means "get up into", and the "come[s] over here" part refers to the trees, not the monkeys.Observe that getting up in the trees is a good way to avoid leopards, and that when you yell "Timber!
", it's because trees are coming your way.
That way, what the monkeys say should still produce the same behaviour as with the summary's language, but the words seem to have more stable, consistent meanings.If this were not the case, one might expect the monkeys to say "leopard + comes-over-here" and "tree + comes-over-here", or something similarly systematic.Also, observe how (human) children apply simple and logical (but sometimes wrong) rules to construct sentence patterns; something like the thought "hey, the expression "you're going down" must mean that relative to you, I'm going up.
Yeah! "I'm going up, you [word]!"".
Key point being: simple rules, a consistent inverse relationship between up and down.
Wouldn't it make sense that monkeys have a similarly simple and consistent language?Note also that the monkeys signal different behaviours when they observe or suspect eagles and snakes.
The word for "eagle" might really mean "duck and cover", and the word for "snake" might really mean "stand really still, on your toes, and look down", since that is how they handle these different kinds of predators.It might also be more effective to say "get up in the trees" and "get up in the trees" versus "there's a leopard coming" and "there's a [different non-climber] coming"; that way, you can get away with a smaller vocabulary, a more restricted vocal apparatus (since you don't need many different sounds), etc.
Just cheaper overall.My cents tw-oo ;-)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374504</id>
	<title>Re:It was the blurst of times.</title>
	<author>bennomatic</author>
	<datestamp>1260298920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Best. Simpsons. Reference. Ever!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best .
Simpsons. Reference .
Ever !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best.
Simpsons. Reference.
Ever!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374126</id>
	<title>Re:It depends what one means by syntax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260293580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its a newspaper article that might not show the whole story. I can easily imagine that "boom boom krak-oo" means: "come to me I hear a danger".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its a newspaper article that might not show the whole story .
I can easily imagine that " boom boom krak-oo " means : " come to me I hear a danger " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its a newspaper article that might not show the whole story.
I can easily imagine that "boom boom krak-oo" means: "come to me I hear a danger".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373954</id>
	<title>One need only . . .</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260291300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>... read Slashdot and Fark to have know that monkeys have language. Not News.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... read Slashdot and Fark to have know that monkeys have language .
Not News .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... read Slashdot and Fark to have know that monkeys have language.
Not News.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374088</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>xigxag</author>
	<datestamp>1260293100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think the article is engaging in a bit of unfortunate hyperbole by using the term "entirely different."  It seems to me that it is NOT entirely different, that in fact the key point is quite the opposite, although articulated in a muddled fashion. It seems to me that the main claim is that "krak" is a generalized term for danger or warning, and that by either duplicating it or adding "-oo" or sticking the whole thing in another phrase, you get different specific warnings.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think the article is engaging in a bit of unfortunate hyperbole by using the term " entirely different .
" It seems to me that it is NOT entirely different , that in fact the key point is quite the opposite , although articulated in a muddled fashion .
It seems to me that the main claim is that " krak " is a generalized term for danger or warning , and that by either duplicating it or adding " -oo " or sticking the whole thing in another phrase , you get different specific warnings .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think the article is engaging in a bit of unfortunate hyperbole by using the term "entirely different.
"  It seems to me that it is NOT entirely different, that in fact the key point is quite the opposite, although articulated in a muddled fashion.
It seems to me that the main claim is that "krak" is a generalized term for danger or warning, and that by either duplicating it or adding "-oo" or sticking the whole thing in another phrase, you get different specific warnings.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373712</id>
	<title>PNAS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260288600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Haha, they said PNAS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Haha , they said PNAS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Haha, they said PNAS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374064</id>
	<title>Re:Backstage evolution pass?</title>
	<author>Garridan</author>
	<datestamp>1260292680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>does anyone else not find the idea of them eventually forming some semblance of civilization possible</p></div><p>I dunno, we've been studying humans for a few thousand years and still don't have any evidence that species evolved from primates can form a civilization...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>does anyone else not find the idea of them eventually forming some semblance of civilization possibleI dunno , we 've been studying humans for a few thousand years and still do n't have any evidence that species evolved from primates can form a civilization.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>does anyone else not find the idea of them eventually forming some semblance of civilization possibleI dunno, we've been studying humans for a few thousand years and still don't have any evidence that species evolved from primates can form a civilization...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374894</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>mestar</author>
	<datestamp>1259613000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>You have have 1 trillion different words in a language</i>
<p>
Yet you keep using the same one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have have 1 trillion different words in a language Yet you keep using the same one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have have 1 trillion different words in a language

Yet you keep using the same one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374116</id>
	<title>Re:Monkey syntax errors aren't so bad</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260293400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Holy crap your sig makes me so angry.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Holy crap your sig makes me so angry .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Holy crap your sig makes me so angry.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373594</id>
	<title>Syntax errors?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.</p></div></blockquote><p>And the GNU toolchain folks expect to have a working compiler front end by some time early next year.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.And the GNU toolchain folks expect to have a working compiler front end by some time early next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.And the GNU toolchain folks expect to have a working compiler front end by some time early next year.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373920</id>
	<title>Here's the paper</title>
	<author>damn\_registrars</author>
	<datestamp>1260291060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Straight from PNAS instead of the NYT summary:<br> <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/104/43/17228.abstract?sid=8e976e48-fa6d-40c9-9a4b-e55ff6aebb99" title="pnas.org">Chimpanzees modify recruitment screams as a function of audience composition</a> [pnas.org] <br>
The full text should be available to anyone in the US for free, AFAIK (and possibly to those outside the US as well).  One thing you will notice on that page is that the NYT is around 2 months late summarizing that article, it was published online in PNAS back in October.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Straight from PNAS instead of the NYT summary : Chimpanzees modify recruitment screams as a function of audience composition [ pnas.org ] The full text should be available to anyone in the US for free , AFAIK ( and possibly to those outside the US as well ) .
One thing you will notice on that page is that the NYT is around 2 months late summarizing that article , it was published online in PNAS back in October .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Straight from PNAS instead of the NYT summary: Chimpanzees modify recruitment screams as a function of audience composition [pnas.org] 
The full text should be available to anyone in the US for free, AFAIK (and possibly to those outside the US as well).
One thing you will notice on that page is that the NYT is around 2 months late summarizing that article, it was published online in PNAS back in October.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374026</id>
	<title>I second that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'll reserve absolute judgment for when I get a chance to look at the actual paper, but this quote from NYT gives me pause: Two booms can be combined with a series of "krak-oos," with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components. This is not (typically) how human language works...meaning is compositionally built up from bits of syntax, whereas what's described here looks more like idiom. In fact, it looks more like phonology (*maybe* morphology) to me...meaningless bits that can be put together to make meaningful bits.</p></div></blockquote><p>I <a href="http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1471670&amp;cid=30373956" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">second</a> [slashdot.org] that wholeheartedly.  This was precisely my reaction.  My, you must be a linguist.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll reserve absolute judgment for when I get a chance to look at the actual paper , but this quote from NYT gives me pause : Two booms can be combined with a series of " krak-oos , " with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components .
This is not ( typically ) how human language works...meaning is compositionally built up from bits of syntax , whereas what 's described here looks more like idiom .
In fact , it looks more like phonology ( * maybe * morphology ) to me...meaningless bits that can be put together to make meaningful bits.I second [ slashdot.org ] that wholeheartedly .
This was precisely my reaction .
My , you must be a linguist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll reserve absolute judgment for when I get a chance to look at the actual paper, but this quote from NYT gives me pause: Two booms can be combined with a series of "krak-oos," with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components.
This is not (typically) how human language works...meaning is compositionally built up from bits of syntax, whereas what's described here looks more like idiom.
In fact, it looks more like phonology (*maybe* morphology) to me...meaningless bits that can be put together to make meaningful bits.I second [slashdot.org] that wholeheartedly.
This was precisely my reaction.
My, you must be a linguist.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374092</id>
	<title>Re:It was the blurst of times.</title>
	<author>hedronist</author>
	<datestamp>1260293160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Strangely enough, your sig link sucks any humor out of your triumphant 'FP!'. I'm surprised you didn't try to get the monkeys to start tea-bagging in the Name of Freedom. You could probably get them to go 'oo-oo-oo' if you presented them with an autographed copy of Sarah Palin's 'book'.
</p><p>
Go ahead, mod me as -1 Troll. Just make sure you mod parent as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Strangely enough , your sig link sucks any humor out of your triumphant 'FP ! ' .
I 'm surprised you did n't try to get the monkeys to start tea-bagging in the Name of Freedom .
You could probably get them to go 'oo-oo-oo ' if you presented them with an autographed copy of Sarah Palin 's 'book' .
Go ahead , mod me as -1 Troll .
Just make sure you mod parent as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Strangely enough, your sig link sucks any humor out of your triumphant 'FP!'.
I'm surprised you didn't try to get the monkeys to start tea-bagging in the Name of Freedom.
You could probably get them to go 'oo-oo-oo' if you presented them with an autographed copy of Sarah Palin's 'book'.
Go ahead, mod me as -1 Troll.
Just make sure you mod parent as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584</id>
	<title>It was the blurst of times.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FP!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FP !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FP!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373664</id>
	<title>Hey, you can recruit them</title>
	<author>christurkel</author>
	<datestamp>1260288060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'd make great Slashdot editors! hahahahahahaha!</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'd make great Slashdot editors !
hahahahahahaha !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'd make great Slashdot editors!
hahahahahahaha!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373678</id>
	<title>ThrowChair</title>
	<author>Tablizer</author>
	<datestamp>1260288240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.</p></div></blockquote><p>They played the Ballmer Monkey Dance back to them, and they all started flinging chairs, and then went out and bought Macs.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp;</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.They played the Ballmer Monkey Dance back to them , and they all started flinging chairs , and then went out and bought Macs .
     </tokentext>
<sentencetext> The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.They played the Ballmer Monkey Dance back to them, and they all started flinging chairs, and then went out and bought Macs.
     
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373622</id>
	<title>Linux 2012: The Real Disaster</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://www.trollaxor.com/2009/11/linux-2012-real-disaster.html" title="trollaxor.com" rel="nofollow">Linux 2012: The Real Disaster</a> [trollaxor.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Linux 2012 : The Real Disaster [ trollaxor.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Linux 2012: The Real Disaster [trollaxor.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373818</id>
	<title>Magic Disappearing Paywall</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1260289800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All you have to do to get around the pay wall is have a referrer from google. <a href="http://www.google.com/news/search?q=\%22Boom!+Hok!+A+Monkey+Language+Is+Deciphered\%22" title="google.com">Like say from here.</a> [google.com] </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All you have to do to get around the pay wall is have a referrer from google .
Like say from here .
[ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All you have to do to get around the pay wall is have a referrer from google.
Like say from here.
[google.com] </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374452</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260298320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When monkeys speak, when the dittoheads finally accept their loss, when the neocons cease to clamor for citizenship verification in spite of clear evidence that our President IS a US citizen, when all those sacrificed upon the altar of corporate avarice are finally avenged, when the children who are homeless once again have a roof overhead and food to eat, when those honorable men and women in harm's way are FINALLY allowed to return home, when, once more, the rule of law is applied universally and not just to the benefit of the obscenely affluent, when no person should sell themselves into economic slavery simply for trying to exercise their God given inalienable right to LIFE ITSELF, then, and ONLY THEN, will the war truly be over.</p><p>Well, we have one out of eight....a good start.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When monkeys speak , when the dittoheads finally accept their loss , when the neocons cease to clamor for citizenship verification in spite of clear evidence that our President IS a US citizen , when all those sacrificed upon the altar of corporate avarice are finally avenged , when the children who are homeless once again have a roof overhead and food to eat , when those honorable men and women in harm 's way are FINALLY allowed to return home , when , once more , the rule of law is applied universally and not just to the benefit of the obscenely affluent , when no person should sell themselves into economic slavery simply for trying to exercise their God given inalienable right to LIFE ITSELF , then , and ONLY THEN , will the war truly be over.Well , we have one out of eight....a good start .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When monkeys speak, when the dittoheads finally accept their loss, when the neocons cease to clamor for citizenship verification in spite of clear evidence that our President IS a US citizen, when all those sacrificed upon the altar of corporate avarice are finally avenged, when the children who are homeless once again have a roof overhead and food to eat, when those honorable men and women in harm's way are FINALLY allowed to return home, when, once more, the rule of law is applied universally and not just to the benefit of the obscenely affluent, when no person should sell themselves into economic slavery simply for trying to exercise their God given inalienable right to LIFE ITSELF, then, and ONLY THEN, will the war truly be over.Well, we have one out of eight....a good start.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374072</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260292800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't know - a predator (danger that's out to get you) and danger from falling trees aren't entirely unrelated.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know - a predator ( danger that 's out to get you ) and danger from falling trees are n't entirely unrelated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know - a predator (danger that's out to get you) and danger from falling trees aren't entirely unrelated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375134</id>
	<title>Re:It depends what one means by syntax...</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1259574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>my first reaction to it is that the example cited by TFA is not clearly syntactic, in the strictest linguistic sense.</p></div><p>And in no small part, that's because you're analyzing it as a human language.  You go on to suggest that the examples cited tend to indicate morphology.  And if this were an elementary study of a phenomenon in a more sophisticated language, I would agree.  However, two points:</p><p>1.  Morphology is fundamentally syntax (underlying mathematics of structure), it's just the syntax with the word, rather than the assembly of words.<br>2.  While morphology is unquestionably more basic than syntax, as a lexicon of words is (we assume) a precursor to the emergence of a language, and though morphology eventually becomes a distinct field in highly developed languages, the initial emergence of syntax (and accordingly, sentences) <em>from<em> morphology is not a black and white line.</em></em></p><p><em><em>Words grow longer and more complicated, and thus carry more and more meaning, until eventually a different structure, a grammar, has to replace a word-based method of communication.  The question that this research seeks to answer is whether there is, in fact, a grammar within this language.</em></em></p><div class="quote"><p><em><em>The second paragraph makes an even more problematic claim: "boom" and "krak-oo," combined together, means something completely different than the parts.</em></em></p><p><em><em>What's the problem with this? That one of the paradigmatic properties of syntactic constructions in human language is compositionality, the principle that the meaning of an expression made of parts A and B is a function of the meanings of A and B themselves, and of the manner in which they are combined in the expression.</em></em></p></div><p>The claim is not problematic and does not necessarily indicate non-compositionality.  Again, I believe your perspective is influenced by a study of highly evolved human languages.  Consider it more like a machine language and you begin to see things slightly differently.</p><p>If you only have a limited range of sounds (as monkeys do, compared to humans) and if you only have a limited storage capacity (again, as monkeys do, compared to humans), then basic syntax enables a great deal of added complexity for relatively no cost.  You can recycle the sounds without creating untenably long morphemes.</p><p>It is not necessarily that "boom" and "krak-oo" when combined mean something different than the parts, but rather that these primates have <em>multiple</em> working definitions for each of their words, and rather than a contextual association, which is rather advanced cognition and language, the different definition is triggered by the <em>syntactical position</em> of the word.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>There's in fact tons of noncompositionality in human language, but it's hard to argue that monkeys have a semblance of human language unless you can clearly argue that the meanings of the subparts of the complex calls combine compositionally</p></div><p>Agreed, but the issue here is a question of whether we fully understand the meanings attached to their sounds.  If you assume that one of their morphemes has exactly one fixed definition regardless of combination, your point is valid.</p><p>But if the meaning shifts based on sequence, allowing each morpheme to be associated with multiple lexical entries depending on its grammatical position within a basic "sentence", then that is indeed evidence of a much more sophisticated language than is commonly assumed.</p><p>Because we have no experience with the development of any human languages at this level, it's hard to say which comes first.  I'm of the belief that phonology blurs into morphology, which then blurs into syntax.  Is a diphthong a phoneme trying to be a morpheme?  Is "boom boom krak-oo [...]" an overextended morpheme, or has it spilled over into a proto-sentence?   What is the line between word and sentence, morphology and syntax?</p><p>You're assuming the answer to the question they're asking, and thus begging the question.  If the "words" always have one meaning, then it's not much of a syntax--but the research aims to show <em>whether</em> those sounds always have the same meaning or if it does vary with composition.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>my first reaction to it is that the example cited by TFA is not clearly syntactic , in the strictest linguistic sense.And in no small part , that 's because you 're analyzing it as a human language .
You go on to suggest that the examples cited tend to indicate morphology .
And if this were an elementary study of a phenomenon in a more sophisticated language , I would agree .
However , two points : 1 .
Morphology is fundamentally syntax ( underlying mathematics of structure ) , it 's just the syntax with the word , rather than the assembly of words.2 .
While morphology is unquestionably more basic than syntax , as a lexicon of words is ( we assume ) a precursor to the emergence of a language , and though morphology eventually becomes a distinct field in highly developed languages , the initial emergence of syntax ( and accordingly , sentences ) from morphology is not a black and white line.Words grow longer and more complicated , and thus carry more and more meaning , until eventually a different structure , a grammar , has to replace a word-based method of communication .
The question that this research seeks to answer is whether there is , in fact , a grammar within this language.The second paragraph makes an even more problematic claim : " boom " and " krak-oo , " combined together , means something completely different than the parts.What 's the problem with this ?
That one of the paradigmatic properties of syntactic constructions in human language is compositionality , the principle that the meaning of an expression made of parts A and B is a function of the meanings of A and B themselves , and of the manner in which they are combined in the expression.The claim is not problematic and does not necessarily indicate non-compositionality .
Again , I believe your perspective is influenced by a study of highly evolved human languages .
Consider it more like a machine language and you begin to see things slightly differently.If you only have a limited range of sounds ( as monkeys do , compared to humans ) and if you only have a limited storage capacity ( again , as monkeys do , compared to humans ) , then basic syntax enables a great deal of added complexity for relatively no cost .
You can recycle the sounds without creating untenably long morphemes.It is not necessarily that " boom " and " krak-oo " when combined mean something different than the parts , but rather that these primates have multiple working definitions for each of their words , and rather than a contextual association , which is rather advanced cognition and language , the different definition is triggered by the syntactical position of the word.There 's in fact tons of noncompositionality in human language , but it 's hard to argue that monkeys have a semblance of human language unless you can clearly argue that the meanings of the subparts of the complex calls combine compositionallyAgreed , but the issue here is a question of whether we fully understand the meanings attached to their sounds .
If you assume that one of their morphemes has exactly one fixed definition regardless of combination , your point is valid.But if the meaning shifts based on sequence , allowing each morpheme to be associated with multiple lexical entries depending on its grammatical position within a basic " sentence " , then that is indeed evidence of a much more sophisticated language than is commonly assumed.Because we have no experience with the development of any human languages at this level , it 's hard to say which comes first .
I 'm of the belief that phonology blurs into morphology , which then blurs into syntax .
Is a diphthong a phoneme trying to be a morpheme ?
Is " boom boom krak-oo [ ... ] " an overextended morpheme , or has it spilled over into a proto-sentence ?
What is the line between word and sentence , morphology and syntax ? You 're assuming the answer to the question they 're asking , and thus begging the question .
If the " words " always have one meaning , then it 's not much of a syntax--but the research aims to show whether those sounds always have the same meaning or if it does vary with composition .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my first reaction to it is that the example cited by TFA is not clearly syntactic, in the strictest linguistic sense.And in no small part, that's because you're analyzing it as a human language.
You go on to suggest that the examples cited tend to indicate morphology.
And if this were an elementary study of a phenomenon in a more sophisticated language, I would agree.
However, two points:1.
Morphology is fundamentally syntax (underlying mathematics of structure), it's just the syntax with the word, rather than the assembly of words.2.
While morphology is unquestionably more basic than syntax, as a lexicon of words is (we assume) a precursor to the emergence of a language, and though morphology eventually becomes a distinct field in highly developed languages, the initial emergence of syntax (and accordingly, sentences) from morphology is not a black and white line.Words grow longer and more complicated, and thus carry more and more meaning, until eventually a different structure, a grammar, has to replace a word-based method of communication.
The question that this research seeks to answer is whether there is, in fact, a grammar within this language.The second paragraph makes an even more problematic claim: "boom" and "krak-oo," combined together, means something completely different than the parts.What's the problem with this?
That one of the paradigmatic properties of syntactic constructions in human language is compositionality, the principle that the meaning of an expression made of parts A and B is a function of the meanings of A and B themselves, and of the manner in which they are combined in the expression.The claim is not problematic and does not necessarily indicate non-compositionality.
Again, I believe your perspective is influenced by a study of highly evolved human languages.
Consider it more like a machine language and you begin to see things slightly differently.If you only have a limited range of sounds (as monkeys do, compared to humans) and if you only have a limited storage capacity (again, as monkeys do, compared to humans), then basic syntax enables a great deal of added complexity for relatively no cost.
You can recycle the sounds without creating untenably long morphemes.It is not necessarily that "boom" and "krak-oo" when combined mean something different than the parts, but rather that these primates have multiple working definitions for each of their words, and rather than a contextual association, which is rather advanced cognition and language, the different definition is triggered by the syntactical position of the word.There's in fact tons of noncompositionality in human language, but it's hard to argue that monkeys have a semblance of human language unless you can clearly argue that the meanings of the subparts of the complex calls combine compositionallyAgreed, but the issue here is a question of whether we fully understand the meanings attached to their sounds.
If you assume that one of their morphemes has exactly one fixed definition regardless of combination, your point is valid.But if the meaning shifts based on sequence, allowing each morpheme to be associated with multiple lexical entries depending on its grammatical position within a basic "sentence", then that is indeed evidence of a much more sophisticated language than is commonly assumed.Because we have no experience with the development of any human languages at this level, it's hard to say which comes first.
I'm of the belief that phonology blurs into morphology, which then blurs into syntax.
Is a diphthong a phoneme trying to be a morpheme?
Is "boom boom krak-oo [...]" an overextended morpheme, or has it spilled over into a proto-sentence?
What is the line between word and sentence, morphology and syntax?You're assuming the answer to the question they're asking, and thus begging the question.
If the "words" always have one meaning, then it's not much of a syntax--but the research aims to show whether those sounds always have the same meaning or if it does vary with composition.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375506</id>
	<title>Re:PNAS</title>
	<author>martas</author>
	<datestamp>1259579940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i don't get it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i do n't get it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i don't get it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373952</id>
	<title>Haven't played back yet?</title>
	<author>Michael Woodhams</author>
	<datestamp>1260291300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Dr. Zuberb&#252;hler said he planned to play back recordings of given calls to the Campbell's monkeys and to test from their reactions whether he had correctly decoded their messaging system."</p><p>They haven't done that, and yet got published in PNAS? While I don't work in animal communication, I'd have thought that would be required for any claim of having decoded messages.</p><p>Or possibly they didn't get published in PNAS - I can't find anything resembling this on the PNAS web site (I have paid-for access.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Dr. Zuberb   hler said he planned to play back recordings of given calls to the Campbell 's monkeys and to test from their reactions whether he had correctly decoded their messaging system .
" They have n't done that , and yet got published in PNAS ?
While I do n't work in animal communication , I 'd have thought that would be required for any claim of having decoded messages.Or possibly they did n't get published in PNAS - I ca n't find anything resembling this on the PNAS web site ( I have paid-for access .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Dr. Zuberbühler said he planned to play back recordings of given calls to the Campbell's monkeys and to test from their reactions whether he had correctly decoded their messaging system.
"They haven't done that, and yet got published in PNAS?
While I don't work in animal communication, I'd have thought that would be required for any claim of having decoded messages.Or possibly they didn't get published in PNAS - I can't find anything resembling this on the PNAS web site (I have paid-for access.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377422</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1259599380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Does this mean they're ripe for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uplift\_Universe" title="wikipedia.org">Uplift</a> [wikipedia.org]?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this mean they 're ripe for Uplift [ wikipedia.org ] ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this mean they're ripe for Uplift [wikipedia.org]?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30383142</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1259586660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I believe I said that humans had yet to FIND anything that can use syntax, and grammar.  (And not "grammar girl" grammar, I mean, real linguistic grammar.)</p><p>I fully hold that humans are just another animal, however bats are the only mammals that can fly... the fact that we have syntax, and have yet to find another animal capable of this?</p><p>It's interesting regardless of the "pompus aire" that it gives us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I believe I said that humans had yet to FIND anything that can use syntax , and grammar .
( And not " grammar girl " grammar , I mean , real linguistic grammar .
) I fully hold that humans are just another animal , however bats are the only mammals that can fly... the fact that we have syntax , and have yet to find another animal capable of this ? It 's interesting regardless of the " pompus aire " that it gives us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I believe I said that humans had yet to FIND anything that can use syntax, and grammar.
(And not "grammar girl" grammar, I mean, real linguistic grammar.
)I fully hold that humans are just another animal, however bats are the only mammals that can fly... the fact that we have syntax, and have yet to find another animal capable of this?It's interesting regardless of the "pompus aire" that it gives us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374676</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375510</id>
	<title>Re:It was the blurst of times.</title>
	<author>HanzoSpam</author>
	<datestamp>1259580000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, if you don't like his sig, I doubt you're going to like mine much, either.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , if you do n't like his sig , I doubt you 're going to like mine much , either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, if you don't like his sig, I doubt you're going to like mine much, either.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373826</id>
	<title>Ok, and then we can...</title>
	<author>FatdogHaiku</author>
	<datestamp>1260289980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.</p></div><p>Create a very long string of recordings of unrelated calls and play them back to check for buffer overflow errors...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.Create a very long string of recordings of unrelated calls and play them back to check for buffer overflow errors.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The researchers plan to play back recordings to the monkeys to test their theories for syntax errors.Create a very long string of recordings of unrelated calls and play them back to check for buffer overflow errors...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</id>
	<title>This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are so many people out there who have been pushing for "animals can speak!" and "we taught monkeys to use sign language!" And it's like, as a linguist, one has to pull out all sorts of jargon and details about why this isn't actual language.</p><p>Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language.  You have have 1 trillion different words in a language, and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words, that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.</p><p>That's why I think this is so cool... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are so many people out there who have been pushing for " animals can speak !
" and " we taught monkeys to use sign language !
" And it 's like , as a linguist , one has to pull out all sorts of jargon and details about why this is n't actual language.Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language .
You have have 1 trillion different words in a language , and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words , that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.That 's why I think this is so cool... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax , because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are so many people out there who have been pushing for "animals can speak!
" and "we taught monkeys to use sign language!
" And it's like, as a linguist, one has to pull out all sorts of jargon and details about why this isn't actual language.Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language.
You have have 1 trillion different words in a language, and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words, that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.That's why I think this is so cool... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375776</id>
	<title>syntax != semantics</title>
	<author>cenc</author>
	<datestamp>1259584440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For all the kids here that studied Philosophy of language and AI, you should know what the Chinese Room thought experiment is all about and why syntax does not equal semantics.</p><p>I would at least wait for the Monkeys' Greatest Hits to be released, and how their fans receive it before handing a banana to any of the monkeys in lab coats for this discovery.</p><p>Remember, as humans we are least bias towards syntax, and worse adding meaning to it when all other things being equal it is nearly impossible to prove it exist. I guess you could say, our own search for meaning tends to get of our way when it comes to our search for meaning involving language and other species.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all the kids here that studied Philosophy of language and AI , you should know what the Chinese Room thought experiment is all about and why syntax does not equal semantics.I would at least wait for the Monkeys ' Greatest Hits to be released , and how their fans receive it before handing a banana to any of the monkeys in lab coats for this discovery.Remember , as humans we are least bias towards syntax , and worse adding meaning to it when all other things being equal it is nearly impossible to prove it exist .
I guess you could say , our own search for meaning tends to get of our way when it comes to our search for meaning involving language and other species .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all the kids here that studied Philosophy of language and AI, you should know what the Chinese Room thought experiment is all about and why syntax does not equal semantics.I would at least wait for the Monkeys' Greatest Hits to be released, and how their fans receive it before handing a banana to any of the monkeys in lab coats for this discovery.Remember, as humans we are least bias towards syntax, and worse adding meaning to it when all other things being equal it is nearly impossible to prove it exist.
I guess you could say, our own search for meaning tends to get of our way when it comes to our search for meaning involving language and other species.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373610</id>
	<title>Meaning is not a key component of syntax.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260287520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Syntax. Semantics. Not same. Doh!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Syntax .
Semantics. Not same .
Doh !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Syntax.
Semantics. Not same.
Doh!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375286</id>
	<title>Re:It depends what one means by syntax...</title>
	<author>vadim\_t</author>
	<datestamp>1259576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think it makes quite a lot of sense actually.</p><p>Take "krak" to mean something like "The scary thing on the ground" (referring to leopards), as opposed to eagles being "the scary thing in the sky". The -oo suffix makes it less specific, like "a scary thing on the ground". "Boom-boom" may mean "run" or "move".</p><p>So "Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo" could be translated to something like "Run! danger on the ground! danger on the ground! danger on the ground!" implying that you must move NOW, or something may fall on your head.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think it makes quite a lot of sense actually.Take " krak " to mean something like " The scary thing on the ground " ( referring to leopards ) , as opposed to eagles being " the scary thing in the sky " .
The -oo suffix makes it less specific , like " a scary thing on the ground " .
" Boom-boom " may mean " run " or " move " .So " Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo " could be translated to something like " Run !
danger on the ground !
danger on the ground !
danger on the ground !
" implying that you must move NOW , or something may fall on your head .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think it makes quite a lot of sense actually.Take "krak" to mean something like "The scary thing on the ground" (referring to leopards), as opposed to eagles being "the scary thing in the sky".
The -oo suffix makes it less specific, like "a scary thing on the ground".
"Boom-boom" may mean "run" or "move".So "Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo" could be translated to something like "Run!
danger on the ground!
danger on the ground!
danger on the ground!
" implying that you must move NOW, or something may fall on your head.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373940</id>
	<title>How can you test this well?</title>
	<author>srothroc</author>
	<datestamp>1260291240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I can't help but feel that you'd have to continuously use new groups of monkeys from the same community, otherwise you'd risk teaching them what you THINK certain calls mean, and they'd begin responding in that fashion...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I ca n't help but feel that you 'd have to continuously use new groups of monkeys from the same community , otherwise you 'd risk teaching them what you THINK certain calls mean , and they 'd begin responding in that fashion.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can't help but feel that you'd have to continuously use new groups of monkeys from the same community, otherwise you'd risk teaching them what you THINK certain calls mean, and they'd begin responding in that fashion...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373722</id>
	<title>You are hereby notified</title>
	<author>paiute</author>
	<datestamp>1260288720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The monkeys' lawyers just served papers on the researchers for copyright violations and the making of unauthorized reproductions of the primates' intellectual property. Spokesape Lance Link said "The researchers have submitted my clients' calls to several funding agencies. This is clearly intent to distribute my clients' intellectual properties, and we will therefore be seeking compensatory and punitive damages of one billion bananas for each call infringed upon."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The monkeys ' lawyers just served papers on the researchers for copyright violations and the making of unauthorized reproductions of the primates ' intellectual property .
Spokesape Lance Link said " The researchers have submitted my clients ' calls to several funding agencies .
This is clearly intent to distribute my clients ' intellectual properties , and we will therefore be seeking compensatory and punitive damages of one billion bananas for each call infringed upon .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The monkeys' lawyers just served papers on the researchers for copyright violations and the making of unauthorized reproductions of the primates' intellectual property.
Spokesape Lance Link said "The researchers have submitted my clients' calls to several funding agencies.
This is clearly intent to distribute my clients' intellectual properties, and we will therefore be seeking compensatory and punitive damages of one billion bananas for each call infringed upon.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375494</id>
	<title>It's an interesting point</title>
	<author>Kupfernigk</author>
	<datestamp>1259579820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It has been informally suggested that Neanderthals  were more robust than sapiens sapiens and that this could have been an early advantage - but once we invented the fire-hardened pointed stick and got good at using it, this ceased to matter. Bruce Chatwin speculated that the persistent "spearman" legends - Perseus and Andromeda, St. George, various dragon slayers - go back a long way to when the tribe was protected from predators by young men with spears, who enjoyed high status.<p>I think the evidence is that while early civilised human beings were smaller and weaker than hunter-gatherers, this is no longer true (at least in the West).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has been informally suggested that Neanderthals were more robust than sapiens sapiens and that this could have been an early advantage - but once we invented the fire-hardened pointed stick and got good at using it , this ceased to matter .
Bruce Chatwin speculated that the persistent " spearman " legends - Perseus and Andromeda , St. George , various dragon slayers - go back a long way to when the tribe was protected from predators by young men with spears , who enjoyed high status.I think the evidence is that while early civilised human beings were smaller and weaker than hunter-gatherers , this is no longer true ( at least in the West ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It has been informally suggested that Neanderthals  were more robust than sapiens sapiens and that this could have been an early advantage - but once we invented the fire-hardened pointed stick and got good at using it, this ceased to matter.
Bruce Chatwin speculated that the persistent "spearman" legends - Perseus and Andromeda, St. George, various dragon slayers - go back a long way to when the tribe was protected from predators by young men with spears, who enjoyed high status.I think the evidence is that while early civilised human beings were smaller and weaker than hunter-gatherers, this is no longer true (at least in the West).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374620</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378582</id>
	<title>Another thought...</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1259605740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're thinking of "syntax" and "morphology" as some sort of essentialist categories, with necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as one of them.  I, on the other hand, am certainly thinking at least of "morphology" as the historical end-result of (human) language change, given certain facts about our psychology; and I am skeptical that any essentialist definition of phonology would satisfy me, because it would entail that a clear line between morphology and syntax, and I regard it as a virtue of the "historical end-result" approach that it implies there is no such line.
</p><p>What I would say is that whatever theory of emergence of language you're thinking of, it's better to look at the phenomena in question in their own terms, instead of trying to analogize them too strongly to something else they're not.  The monkey calls have their own combinatorics, which doesn't show clear evidence of compositionality of meaning (indicated by the fact that you have to resort to lots of polysemy to make the case for compositionality).  The comparisons can be interesting, but there's little point IMO in arguing that those combinatorics are "really" syntax or morphology, when the differences can be pointed out so straightforwardly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're thinking of " syntax " and " morphology " as some sort of essentialist categories , with necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as one of them .
I , on the other hand , am certainly thinking at least of " morphology " as the historical end-result of ( human ) language change , given certain facts about our psychology ; and I am skeptical that any essentialist definition of phonology would satisfy me , because it would entail that a clear line between morphology and syntax , and I regard it as a virtue of the " historical end-result " approach that it implies there is no such line .
What I would say is that whatever theory of emergence of language you 're thinking of , it 's better to look at the phenomena in question in their own terms , instead of trying to analogize them too strongly to something else they 're not .
The monkey calls have their own combinatorics , which does n't show clear evidence of compositionality of meaning ( indicated by the fact that you have to resort to lots of polysemy to make the case for compositionality ) .
The comparisons can be interesting , but there 's little point IMO in arguing that those combinatorics are " really " syntax or morphology , when the differences can be pointed out so straightforwardly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're thinking of "syntax" and "morphology" as some sort of essentialist categories, with necessary and sufficient conditions for something to count as one of them.
I, on the other hand, am certainly thinking at least of "morphology" as the historical end-result of (human) language change, given certain facts about our psychology; and I am skeptical that any essentialist definition of phonology would satisfy me, because it would entail that a clear line between morphology and syntax, and I regard it as a virtue of the "historical end-result" approach that it implies there is no such line.
What I would say is that whatever theory of emergence of language you're thinking of, it's better to look at the phenomena in question in their own terms, instead of trying to analogize them too strongly to something else they're not.
The monkey calls have their own combinatorics, which doesn't show clear evidence of compositionality of meaning (indicated by the fact that you have to resort to lots of polysemy to make the case for compositionality).
The comparisons can be interesting, but there's little point IMO in arguing that those combinatorics are "really" syntax or morphology, when the differences can be pointed out so straightforwardly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375134</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374342</id>
	<title>Re:It was the blurst of times.</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1260296760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the record, that isn't my blog. And I only agree with 75\% of the blog author's opinions.</p><p>But let me please get this straight: according to you, anyone who disapproves of socialism is incapable of humor? Or anyone who dislikes Obama is undeserving of positive feedback from this group?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the record , that is n't my blog .
And I only agree with 75 \ % of the blog author 's opinions.But let me please get this straight : according to you , anyone who disapproves of socialism is incapable of humor ?
Or anyone who dislikes Obama is undeserving of positive feedback from this group ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the record, that isn't my blog.
And I only agree with 75\% of the blog author's opinions.But let me please get this straight: according to you, anyone who disapproves of socialism is incapable of humor?
Or anyone who dislikes Obama is undeserving of positive feedback from this group?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376696</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Jesus\_666</author>
	<datestamp>1259594580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The problem is that GWB's restricted range of expression allows one to catalogue his utterings and possibly infer whether he possesses the capacity for syntax. While Obama mostly uses sounds like "change", "healthcare" and "yes-we-can", he uses a large number of other, yet uncategorized "filler sounds" that we don't yet know the meaning of. This makes hm a less attractive target for linguistic analysis as we don't know much about the sounds he makes yet.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is that GWB 's restricted range of expression allows one to catalogue his utterings and possibly infer whether he possesses the capacity for syntax .
While Obama mostly uses sounds like " change " , " healthcare " and " yes-we-can " , he uses a large number of other , yet uncategorized " filler sounds " that we do n't yet know the meaning of .
This makes hm a less attractive target for linguistic analysis as we do n't know much about the sounds he makes yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is that GWB's restricted range of expression allows one to catalogue his utterings and possibly infer whether he possesses the capacity for syntax.
While Obama mostly uses sounds like "change", "healthcare" and "yes-we-can", he uses a large number of other, yet uncategorized "filler sounds" that we don't yet know the meaning of.
This makes hm a less attractive target for linguistic analysis as we don't know much about the sounds he makes yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377312</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>locallyunscene</author>
	<datestamp>1259598720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Are we suddenly not allowed to make fun of politicians who are not in office?
<br> <br>
Agreed, the joke is tired and overdone, but it's not as if leaving office stopped jokes from following past political figures.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we suddenly not allowed to make fun of politicians who are not in office ?
Agreed , the joke is tired and overdone , but it 's not as if leaving office stopped jokes from following past political figures .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we suddenly not allowed to make fun of politicians who are not in office?
Agreed, the joke is tired and overdone, but it's not as if leaving office stopped jokes from following past political figures.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374782</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>simplerThanPossible</author>
	<datestamp>1259611260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been reading "The Language Instinct" (Pinker), and his thorough development of his theme is really striking: that language in humans is a biological feature similar, in that sense, to how we walk or digest food.  We don't have to try or think about it; it's a free gift.  I agree it would be cool to see a syntax, or proto-syntax, or just *some* step along the way.  It would really emphasize that language is, partially, just a biological instinct.</p><p>I find it odd to think of monkeys having a "word" for different predators, because a predator-specific call isn't necessarily part of a language, which the term "word" implies.</p><p>BTW: I find the linguist claim of "infinite" range of expression to be disingenuous, because, while it's technically true, the *vast* majority of them are uninteresting, not useful, and not used. e.g. "I (really)* like ice-cream"; or "(I wonder why)* I wonder." (using regular expression syntax, where "*" means 0 to an infinite number of repetitions).  In contrast, simply composing different words is extremely expressive: combining just two words squares the number of expressions; three words cubes it, and so on (v^n, where v is vocabulary size; ^ is "to the power of"; and n is the number of words in the expression).  As an example, it's easy to find a phrase that is unique to a document (for a google search). It's not *infinite*, but it's huge, and the results are interesting, useful, and used.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been reading " The Language Instinct " ( Pinker ) , and his thorough development of his theme is really striking : that language in humans is a biological feature similar , in that sense , to how we walk or digest food .
We do n't have to try or think about it ; it 's a free gift .
I agree it would be cool to see a syntax , or proto-syntax , or just * some * step along the way .
It would really emphasize that language is , partially , just a biological instinct.I find it odd to think of monkeys having a " word " for different predators , because a predator-specific call is n't necessarily part of a language , which the term " word " implies.BTW : I find the linguist claim of " infinite " range of expression to be disingenuous , because , while it 's technically true , the * vast * majority of them are uninteresting , not useful , and not used .
e.g. " I ( really ) * like ice-cream " ; or " ( I wonder why ) * I wonder .
" ( using regular expression syntax , where " * " means 0 to an infinite number of repetitions ) .
In contrast , simply composing different words is extremely expressive : combining just two words squares the number of expressions ; three words cubes it , and so on ( v ^ n , where v is vocabulary size ; ^ is " to the power of " ; and n is the number of words in the expression ) .
As an example , it 's easy to find a phrase that is unique to a document ( for a google search ) .
It 's not * infinite * , but it 's huge , and the results are interesting , useful , and used .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been reading "The Language Instinct" (Pinker), and his thorough development of his theme is really striking: that language in humans is a biological feature similar, in that sense, to how we walk or digest food.
We don't have to try or think about it; it's a free gift.
I agree it would be cool to see a syntax, or proto-syntax, or just *some* step along the way.
It would really emphasize that language is, partially, just a biological instinct.I find it odd to think of monkeys having a "word" for different predators, because a predator-specific call isn't necessarily part of a language, which the term "word" implies.BTW: I find the linguist claim of "infinite" range of expression to be disingenuous, because, while it's technically true, the *vast* majority of them are uninteresting, not useful, and not used.
e.g. "I (really)* like ice-cream"; or "(I wonder why)* I wonder.
" (using regular expression syntax, where "*" means 0 to an infinite number of repetitions).
In contrast, simply composing different words is extremely expressive: combining just two words squares the number of expressions; three words cubes it, and so on (v^n, where v is vocabulary size; ^ is "to the power of"; and n is the number of words in the expression).
As an example, it's easy to find a phrase that is unique to a document (for a google search).
It's not *infinite*, but it's huge, and the results are interesting, useful, and used.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374914</id>
	<title>Re:It depends what one means by syntax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259613360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You definitely make a good interesting point - but, if one adopts sufficiently vague meanings one can get a sort of compositionality. For example:</p><ul> <li> <i>boom-boom</i> here, local, in-this-place</li><li> <i>krak</i> danger, risk, something-that-can hurt-you</li><li> <i>-oo</i> unseen, heard, unexpected</li></ul><p>So, a falling tree is local ("boom-boom"), dangerous ("krak"), and unexpected ("-oo"). Admittedly a bit of a stretch - but maybe it makes sense to the monkeys.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You definitely make a good interesting point - but , if one adopts sufficiently vague meanings one can get a sort of compositionality .
For example : boom-boom here , local , in-this-place krak danger , risk , something-that-can hurt-you -oo unseen , heard , unexpectedSo , a falling tree is local ( " boom-boom " ) , dangerous ( " krak " ) , and unexpected ( " -oo " ) .
Admittedly a bit of a stretch - but maybe it makes sense to the monkeys .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You definitely make a good interesting point - but, if one adopts sufficiently vague meanings one can get a sort of compositionality.
For example:  boom-boom here, local, in-this-place krak danger, risk, something-that-can hurt-you -oo unseen, heard, unexpectedSo, a falling tree is local ("boom-boom"), dangerous ("krak"), and unexpected ("-oo").
Admittedly a bit of a stretch - but maybe it makes sense to the monkeys.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376784</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>radtea</author>
	<datestamp>1259595240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>However, it might be the case that this "syntax" has developed in parallel to human syntax from some common protolanguage</i></p><p>What is interesting here is not the structure of the language, but the fact of it.</p><p>Humans are possessed of a wide range of incredibly powerful, flexible and general linguistic mechanisms.  Non-human animals are frequently held to be entirely non-linguistic.</p><p>This is implausible on the most basic evolutionary grounds:  evolution is an elaborative process, and to have such remarkable abilities amongst humans strongly suggests a lot of linguistic or proto-linguistic capability in our ancestral line, and probably in other animals too.  Otherwise, it would be like humans having the ability to run fifty miles in one go in a world where no other animal has legs.</p><p>While the sexual selection forces that drove the evolution of human intelligence are powerful and able to produce relatively rapid elaboration of new capabilities, those capabilities have to be elaborations of something that already existed, and so we should naively expect this kind of discovery.  Unfortunately, because linguists seem for some reason to think that human language is the only possible model for language (see the other comments from linguists in this thread, for example) it can be difficult to recognize the linguistic (or possibly linguist-ish) capabilities of non-human species that do not conform well to that model.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , it might be the case that this " syntax " has developed in parallel to human syntax from some common protolanguageWhat is interesting here is not the structure of the language , but the fact of it.Humans are possessed of a wide range of incredibly powerful , flexible and general linguistic mechanisms .
Non-human animals are frequently held to be entirely non-linguistic.This is implausible on the most basic evolutionary grounds : evolution is an elaborative process , and to have such remarkable abilities amongst humans strongly suggests a lot of linguistic or proto-linguistic capability in our ancestral line , and probably in other animals too .
Otherwise , it would be like humans having the ability to run fifty miles in one go in a world where no other animal has legs.While the sexual selection forces that drove the evolution of human intelligence are powerful and able to produce relatively rapid elaboration of new capabilities , those capabilities have to be elaborations of something that already existed , and so we should naively expect this kind of discovery .
Unfortunately , because linguists seem for some reason to think that human language is the only possible model for language ( see the other comments from linguists in this thread , for example ) it can be difficult to recognize the linguistic ( or possibly linguist-ish ) capabilities of non-human species that do not conform well to that model .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>However, it might be the case that this "syntax" has developed in parallel to human syntax from some common protolanguageWhat is interesting here is not the structure of the language, but the fact of it.Humans are possessed of a wide range of incredibly powerful, flexible and general linguistic mechanisms.
Non-human animals are frequently held to be entirely non-linguistic.This is implausible on the most basic evolutionary grounds:  evolution is an elaborative process, and to have such remarkable abilities amongst humans strongly suggests a lot of linguistic or proto-linguistic capability in our ancestral line, and probably in other animals too.
Otherwise, it would be like humans having the ability to run fifty miles in one go in a world where no other animal has legs.While the sexual selection forces that drove the evolution of human intelligence are powerful and able to produce relatively rapid elaboration of new capabilities, those capabilities have to be elaborations of something that already existed, and so we should naively expect this kind of discovery.
Unfortunately, because linguists seem for some reason to think that human language is the only possible model for language (see the other comments from linguists in this thread, for example) it can be difficult to recognize the linguistic (or possibly linguist-ish) capabilities of non-human species that do not conform well to that model.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373632</id>
	<title>ook?</title>
	<author>Suchetha</author>
	<datestamp>1260287700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://www.lspace.org/books/whos-who/librarian.html" title="lspace.org">Ook!</a> [lspace.org] </p><p><a href="http://www.dangermouse.net/esoteric/ook.html" title="dangermouse.net">OOK!</a> [dangermouse.net]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ook !
[ lspace.org ] OOK !
[ dangermouse.net ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ook!
[lspace.org] OOK!
[dangermouse.net]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375466</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259579520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <i>The war is over, you won, W is gone.</i></p></div> </blockquote><p>

He served the maximum number of terms permissible, how is that "won"?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The war is over , you won , W is gone .
He served the maximum number of terms permissible , how is that " won " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The war is over, you won, W is gone.
He served the maximum number of terms permissible, how is that "won"?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374656</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260300960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Whether or not you found yourself in agreement with Bush and his administration's policies, we can all agree on one thing -- George W. Bush was not a good orator. <br> <br>To be the *president*, he was especially bad at giving speeches and made so many (huge and funny) mistakes that if there is one president who goes in the history books as someone who couldn't give a proper speech to save the country, GWB would be it.<br> <br>Winning war -- be it metaphorical or literal -- doesn't make his endless supply of silly speech screw ups go away.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Whether or not you found yourself in agreement with Bush and his administration 's policies , we can all agree on one thing -- George W. Bush was not a good orator .
To be the * president * , he was especially bad at giving speeches and made so many ( huge and funny ) mistakes that if there is one president who goes in the history books as someone who could n't give a proper speech to save the country , GWB would be it .
Winning war -- be it metaphorical or literal -- does n't make his endless supply of silly speech screw ups go away .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whether or not you found yourself in agreement with Bush and his administration's policies, we can all agree on one thing -- George W. Bush was not a good orator.
To be the *president*, he was especially bad at giving speeches and made so many (huge and funny) mistakes that if there is one president who goes in the history books as someone who couldn't give a proper speech to save the country, GWB would be it.
Winning war -- be it metaphorical or literal -- doesn't make his endless supply of silly speech screw ups go away.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375730</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259583660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language. </p></div><p>Then linguists should have been paying closer attention, and/or been been more accepting of the definition of syntax that applies to sign language: simultaneous/parallel modifiers to sign displays that alter the meanings; taken together they can be considered the primary means of development of language -- compounding components into single components with specific meanings. The novel constructions that result can be instantly recognized and meaning determined by another user of the language despite not having encountered that specific combination before. If the latter, it would only fit the Skinnerian learning model; if the former, Chomsky's 'generative grammar'.</p><p>Either millions of sign users around the world are not using language because they're not using syntax, or Koko has been using language for quite some time because she has been using syntax in constructions to modify the meanings of combinations of signs.</p><p>Penny Patterson writes:  Koko uses several aspects of ASL syntax in the utterance, "You sip?". She indicates a question by maintaining eye contact, holding the sign for an extended period of time, and raising her eyebrows. She adjusts the subject of the phrase from</p><p>"I sip" to "you sip" by moving the sign away from her lips and turning it toward me, thereby altering the direction of the sign. Her pursed lips and forward-leaning posture are additional grammatical inflections.</p><p>The sign "sip" is Koko's invention, a combination of the signs "eat" (fingers to mouth) and "drink" (thumb to mouth). "Sip" can be a noun or a verb; the distinction is marked in ASL by repetition of the contact motion if the sign acts as a noun, and by a single contact if it acts as a verb. Koko regularly uses this syntactic feature of sign.</p><p>Interested readers can see Koko's sign language in action in the 1999 PBS Nature documentary, "A Conversation with Koko."</p><p>(We now return to our<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post)</p><p>None of the linguists I've worked with ever had a problem considering the modifier components of sign as syntax, particularly if they were used generatively. And they had no problem recognizing Koko's signs as such. This was at the Nation Institute on Deafness and Communications Disorders at NIH, which means two things to my mind: (1) what would you expect from linguists working at NIDCD?, but then (2) NIDCD doesn't bother with linguists who can't manage to expand their thinking beyond the restrictive serial language syntax constructions. The latter adhere to a limited form of Chomky's theory, taking generative grammar to mean people in different cultures develop different syntax/grammars evidenced by different patterns of construction (especially noun/verb ordering) specific to those cultures. These are easily refuted by (1) presenting sentences with ordering uncommon to the language used, with comprehension in intact (says Yoda understand what I'm saying you can), (2) tonal languages which have a simultaneous modifier that, while is a vocal component, performs exactly like the modifiers that are considered syntax in sign.</p><p>I studied linguistics so that I could do my neuroscience magic tricks and figure out what the brain was doing during different phases of communication, both ordered and disordered. I also happened to have been an ASL interpreter with experience in sign languages from other countries (ie. not derived from Gallaudet's French version). Through these I came, by necessity, to recognize how much of human communication is non-verbal, that and includes most of ASL 'syntax' in that it's based in kinesics, proxemics and chronemics. Having been so equipped, I found that by simply taking the non-verbal as the primary rather than the semantic "word" unit, I could deconstruct much of animal behavior as display behavior with intentional meaning. So it was of no surprise that in reading Penny Patterson's dissertation I understood very well what was language and what was not in Koko's case. One single instance always comes to mind that to me proves Koko uses language intentionally and as creatively as any child over the developmental stage that produces most language in human learning. Koko not only put together signs in a simultaneous and abbreviated fashion to construct a novel sign immediately recognized by Penny as to meaning, and did so incorporating the context of the dialog and her own emotional state (distaste and disgust for her non-signing and less intelligent intended mate, Mike), but in doing so, she cussed: "Mike (dirty+toilet+stink)" = 'Mike is shit.'</p><p>While skepticism is important in science, it is only useful when it is displayed by one who has the background to understand that which they doubt. Most linguists who claim skepticism with regards to animal language will, if pressed, admit to a lack of understanding in those facets of communication which are observed in humans and required for language, but fall outside traditional linguistics. Their claims are unsupported assertions, not refutations. Some do have the background and still doubt. I can respect that. But every one of those I've talked to in person own no pets. Word.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language .
Then linguists should have been paying closer attention , and/or been been more accepting of the definition of syntax that applies to sign language : simultaneous/parallel modifiers to sign displays that alter the meanings ; taken together they can be considered the primary means of development of language -- compounding components into single components with specific meanings .
The novel constructions that result can be instantly recognized and meaning determined by another user of the language despite not having encountered that specific combination before .
If the latter , it would only fit the Skinnerian learning model ; if the former , Chomsky 's 'generative grammar'.Either millions of sign users around the world are not using language because they 're not using syntax , or Koko has been using language for quite some time because she has been using syntax in constructions to modify the meanings of combinations of signs.Penny Patterson writes : Koko uses several aspects of ASL syntax in the utterance , " You sip ? " .
She indicates a question by maintaining eye contact , holding the sign for an extended period of time , and raising her eyebrows .
She adjusts the subject of the phrase from " I sip " to " you sip " by moving the sign away from her lips and turning it toward me , thereby altering the direction of the sign .
Her pursed lips and forward-leaning posture are additional grammatical inflections.The sign " sip " is Koko 's invention , a combination of the signs " eat " ( fingers to mouth ) and " drink " ( thumb to mouth ) .
" Sip " can be a noun or a verb ; the distinction is marked in ASL by repetition of the contact motion if the sign acts as a noun , and by a single contact if it acts as a verb .
Koko regularly uses this syntactic feature of sign.Interested readers can see Koko 's sign language in action in the 1999 PBS Nature documentary , " A Conversation with Koko .
" ( We now return to our / .
post ) None of the linguists I 've worked with ever had a problem considering the modifier components of sign as syntax , particularly if they were used generatively .
And they had no problem recognizing Koko 's signs as such .
This was at the Nation Institute on Deafness and Communications Disorders at NIH , which means two things to my mind : ( 1 ) what would you expect from linguists working at NIDCD ? , but then ( 2 ) NIDCD does n't bother with linguists who ca n't manage to expand their thinking beyond the restrictive serial language syntax constructions .
The latter adhere to a limited form of Chomky 's theory , taking generative grammar to mean people in different cultures develop different syntax/grammars evidenced by different patterns of construction ( especially noun/verb ordering ) specific to those cultures .
These are easily refuted by ( 1 ) presenting sentences with ordering uncommon to the language used , with comprehension in intact ( says Yoda understand what I 'm saying you can ) , ( 2 ) tonal languages which have a simultaneous modifier that , while is a vocal component , performs exactly like the modifiers that are considered syntax in sign.I studied linguistics so that I could do my neuroscience magic tricks and figure out what the brain was doing during different phases of communication , both ordered and disordered .
I also happened to have been an ASL interpreter with experience in sign languages from other countries ( ie .
not derived from Gallaudet 's French version ) .
Through these I came , by necessity , to recognize how much of human communication is non-verbal , that and includes most of ASL 'syntax ' in that it 's based in kinesics , proxemics and chronemics .
Having been so equipped , I found that by simply taking the non-verbal as the primary rather than the semantic " word " unit , I could deconstruct much of animal behavior as display behavior with intentional meaning .
So it was of no surprise that in reading Penny Patterson 's dissertation I understood very well what was language and what was not in Koko 's case .
One single instance always comes to mind that to me proves Koko uses language intentionally and as creatively as any child over the developmental stage that produces most language in human learning .
Koko not only put together signs in a simultaneous and abbreviated fashion to construct a novel sign immediately recognized by Penny as to meaning , and did so incorporating the context of the dialog and her own emotional state ( distaste and disgust for her non-signing and less intelligent intended mate , Mike ) , but in doing so , she cussed : " Mike ( dirty + toilet + stink ) " = 'Mike is shit .
'While skepticism is important in science , it is only useful when it is displayed by one who has the background to understand that which they doubt .
Most linguists who claim skepticism with regards to animal language will , if pressed , admit to a lack of understanding in those facets of communication which are observed in humans and required for language , but fall outside traditional linguistics .
Their claims are unsupported assertions , not refutations .
Some do have the background and still doubt .
I can respect that .
But every one of those I 've talked to in person own no pets .
Word .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language.
Then linguists should have been paying closer attention, and/or been been more accepting of the definition of syntax that applies to sign language: simultaneous/parallel modifiers to sign displays that alter the meanings; taken together they can be considered the primary means of development of language -- compounding components into single components with specific meanings.
The novel constructions that result can be instantly recognized and meaning determined by another user of the language despite not having encountered that specific combination before.
If the latter, it would only fit the Skinnerian learning model; if the former, Chomsky's 'generative grammar'.Either millions of sign users around the world are not using language because they're not using syntax, or Koko has been using language for quite some time because she has been using syntax in constructions to modify the meanings of combinations of signs.Penny Patterson writes:  Koko uses several aspects of ASL syntax in the utterance, "You sip?".
She indicates a question by maintaining eye contact, holding the sign for an extended period of time, and raising her eyebrows.
She adjusts the subject of the phrase from"I sip" to "you sip" by moving the sign away from her lips and turning it toward me, thereby altering the direction of the sign.
Her pursed lips and forward-leaning posture are additional grammatical inflections.The sign "sip" is Koko's invention, a combination of the signs "eat" (fingers to mouth) and "drink" (thumb to mouth).
"Sip" can be a noun or a verb; the distinction is marked in ASL by repetition of the contact motion if the sign acts as a noun, and by a single contact if it acts as a verb.
Koko regularly uses this syntactic feature of sign.Interested readers can see Koko's sign language in action in the 1999 PBS Nature documentary, "A Conversation with Koko.
"(We now return to our /.
post)None of the linguists I've worked with ever had a problem considering the modifier components of sign as syntax, particularly if they were used generatively.
And they had no problem recognizing Koko's signs as such.
This was at the Nation Institute on Deafness and Communications Disorders at NIH, which means two things to my mind: (1) what would you expect from linguists working at NIDCD?, but then (2) NIDCD doesn't bother with linguists who can't manage to expand their thinking beyond the restrictive serial language syntax constructions.
The latter adhere to a limited form of Chomky's theory, taking generative grammar to mean people in different cultures develop different syntax/grammars evidenced by different patterns of construction (especially noun/verb ordering) specific to those cultures.
These are easily refuted by (1) presenting sentences with ordering uncommon to the language used, with comprehension in intact (says Yoda understand what I'm saying you can), (2) tonal languages which have a simultaneous modifier that, while is a vocal component, performs exactly like the modifiers that are considered syntax in sign.I studied linguistics so that I could do my neuroscience magic tricks and figure out what the brain was doing during different phases of communication, both ordered and disordered.
I also happened to have been an ASL interpreter with experience in sign languages from other countries (ie.
not derived from Gallaudet's French version).
Through these I came, by necessity, to recognize how much of human communication is non-verbal, that and includes most of ASL 'syntax' in that it's based in kinesics, proxemics and chronemics.
Having been so equipped, I found that by simply taking the non-verbal as the primary rather than the semantic "word" unit, I could deconstruct much of animal behavior as display behavior with intentional meaning.
So it was of no surprise that in reading Penny Patterson's dissertation I understood very well what was language and what was not in Koko's case.
One single instance always comes to mind that to me proves Koko uses language intentionally and as creatively as any child over the developmental stage that produces most language in human learning.
Koko not only put together signs in a simultaneous and abbreviated fashion to construct a novel sign immediately recognized by Penny as to meaning, and did so incorporating the context of the dialog and her own emotional state (distaste and disgust for her non-signing and less intelligent intended mate, Mike), but in doing so, she cussed: "Mike (dirty+toilet+stink)" = 'Mike is shit.
'While skepticism is important in science, it is only useful when it is displayed by one who has the background to understand that which they doubt.
Most linguists who claim skepticism with regards to animal language will, if pressed, admit to a lack of understanding in those facets of communication which are observed in humans and required for language, but fall outside traditional linguistics.
Their claims are unsupported assertions, not refutations.
Some do have the background and still doubt.
I can respect that.
But every one of those I've talked to in person own no pets.
Word.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374540</id>
	<title>Re:Meaning is not a key component of syntax.</title>
	<author>mr\_matticus</author>
	<datestamp>1260299520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, "meaning" isn't just limited to sense and reference (semantics).</p><p>Meaning, that is, syntactic meaning, is a key component of syntax.  Without meaning, syntax can't exist.</p><p>Knowing that a repeating pattern has a logical definitional rule behind it is a key element of meaning.  If I say the word "mine" to you, without syntax, you have no idea of the semantic meaning.  Is it a verb?  An object? A noun?  If it is a noun, does it refer to the kind for digging or the kind for exploding?  Syntax plays a huge role in meaning.</p><p>Consider that the monkeys have a semantic inventory of distinct sounds A , B, and C.  Semantically, they have three concepts and no more--because they lack syntax.  With a simple syntactic structure, the sounds get new meanings because sequence suddenly informs meaning.</p><p>Without syntax, words can only have one meaning.  As the article argues and as the sentence describes, the fact that position changes the meaning of sounds is key evidence of the use of <em>syntax</em> in the language.  If semantic meaning were unaffected by sequence, that would be evidence of the absence of syntax.</p><p>Semantics cannot be divorced from phonology and syntax in oral language.  Phonological meaning plus syntactic meaning <em>is</em> fundamentally semantic meaning.  More advanced languages have more complicated systems of context and idiom that add layers onto this.  But the basic point remains that meaning is certainly an element of syntax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , " meaning " is n't just limited to sense and reference ( semantics ) .Meaning , that is , syntactic meaning , is a key component of syntax .
Without meaning , syntax ca n't exist.Knowing that a repeating pattern has a logical definitional rule behind it is a key element of meaning .
If I say the word " mine " to you , without syntax , you have no idea of the semantic meaning .
Is it a verb ?
An object ?
A noun ?
If it is a noun , does it refer to the kind for digging or the kind for exploding ?
Syntax plays a huge role in meaning.Consider that the monkeys have a semantic inventory of distinct sounds A , B , and C. Semantically , they have three concepts and no more--because they lack syntax .
With a simple syntactic structure , the sounds get new meanings because sequence suddenly informs meaning.Without syntax , words can only have one meaning .
As the article argues and as the sentence describes , the fact that position changes the meaning of sounds is key evidence of the use of syntax in the language .
If semantic meaning were unaffected by sequence , that would be evidence of the absence of syntax.Semantics can not be divorced from phonology and syntax in oral language .
Phonological meaning plus syntactic meaning is fundamentally semantic meaning .
More advanced languages have more complicated systems of context and idiom that add layers onto this .
But the basic point remains that meaning is certainly an element of syntax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, "meaning" isn't just limited to sense and reference (semantics).Meaning, that is, syntactic meaning, is a key component of syntax.
Without meaning, syntax can't exist.Knowing that a repeating pattern has a logical definitional rule behind it is a key element of meaning.
If I say the word "mine" to you, without syntax, you have no idea of the semantic meaning.
Is it a verb?
An object?
A noun?
If it is a noun, does it refer to the kind for digging or the kind for exploding?
Syntax plays a huge role in meaning.Consider that the monkeys have a semantic inventory of distinct sounds A , B, and C.  Semantically, they have three concepts and no more--because they lack syntax.
With a simple syntactic structure, the sounds get new meanings because sequence suddenly informs meaning.Without syntax, words can only have one meaning.
As the article argues and as the sentence describes, the fact that position changes the meaning of sounds is key evidence of the use of syntax in the language.
If semantic meaning were unaffected by sequence, that would be evidence of the absence of syntax.Semantics cannot be divorced from phonology and syntax in oral language.
Phonological meaning plus syntactic meaning is fundamentally semantic meaning.
More advanced languages have more complicated systems of context and idiom that add layers onto this.
But the basic point remains that meaning is certainly an element of syntax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373610</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30380718</id>
	<title>Re:It was the blurst of times.</title>
	<author>cyphercell</author>
	<datestamp>1259574780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Like I give a rat's fucking ass about being moderated flamebait. This "liberal hate" bullshit is sick and fucked up. You fucking retarded piece of shit. You claim government is evil and too big and corporations are teaming up with senators to take your stupid piece of shit rusty bb guns away, then you've got the nerve to claim your politicians are better than the others because they say they're for small government. Are You Shitting me? You fucking moron, of course corporations and politicians are going to tell you what you want to hear before they dump megatons of toxic shit in your drinking water and raise your taxes to pay for the cleanup. You stupid fucking cunt.</p><p>Where do you get off claiming all government problems are liberal?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Like I give a rat 's fucking ass about being moderated flamebait .
This " liberal hate " bullshit is sick and fucked up .
You fucking retarded piece of shit .
You claim government is evil and too big and corporations are teaming up with senators to take your stupid piece of shit rusty bb guns away , then you 've got the nerve to claim your politicians are better than the others because they say they 're for small government .
Are You Shitting me ?
You fucking moron , of course corporations and politicians are going to tell you what you want to hear before they dump megatons of toxic shit in your drinking water and raise your taxes to pay for the cleanup .
You stupid fucking cunt.Where do you get off claiming all government problems are liberal ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Like I give a rat's fucking ass about being moderated flamebait.
This "liberal hate" bullshit is sick and fucked up.
You fucking retarded piece of shit.
You claim government is evil and too big and corporations are teaming up with senators to take your stupid piece of shit rusty bb guns away, then you've got the nerve to claim your politicians are better than the others because they say they're for small government.
Are You Shitting me?
You fucking moron, of course corporations and politicians are going to tell you what you want to hear before they dump megatons of toxic shit in your drinking water and raise your taxes to pay for the cleanup.
You stupid fucking cunt.Where do you get off claiming all government problems are liberal?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375018</id>
	<title>Re:It depends what one means by syntax...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Meaning depends on context!<br>Let me phrase it for you with a similar example : "Bitch bites cock", oooh the joys of polysemy</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Meaning depends on context ! Let me phrase it for you with a similar example : " Bitch bites cock " , oooh the joys of polysemy</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Meaning depends on context!Let me phrase it for you with a similar example : "Bitch bites cock", oooh the joys of polysemy</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373696</id>
	<title>Monkey version of Timber</title>
	<author>Kebis</author>
	<datestamp>1260288480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>The monkey version of "Timber!" is &ldquo;Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo". So, in monkey it's 8 sylables, and in English it's 2. No wonder humans became the dominant species, we had more time to get out of the way after the falling tree warning.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The monkey version of " Timber !
" is    Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo " .
So , in monkey it 's 8 sylables , and in English it 's 2 .
No wonder humans became the dominant species , we had more time to get out of the way after the falling tree warning .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The monkey version of "Timber!
" is “Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo".
So, in monkey it's 8 sylables, and in English it's 2.
No wonder humans became the dominant species, we had more time to get out of the way after the falling tree warning.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378250</id>
	<title>Re:Is the word for "leopard" really "tree"?</title>
	<author>Will.Woodhull</author>
	<datestamp>1259604180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried to read parent post, I really did.

</p><p>It wasn't tl;dr that caused me to quit halfway through.

</p><p>It was tms: too much syntax.

</p><p>Syntax can be overused. When the mapping of syntactic possibilities begin to branch in too complex a fashion, then information is destroyed rather than conveyed.

</p><p>KISS is good. Parent post was not KISS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried to read parent post , I really did .
It was n't tl ; dr that caused me to quit halfway through .
It was tms : too much syntax .
Syntax can be overused .
When the mapping of syntactic possibilities begin to branch in too complex a fashion , then information is destroyed rather than conveyed .
KISS is good .
Parent post was not KISS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried to read parent post, I really did.
It wasn't tl;dr that caused me to quit halfway through.
It was tms: too much syntax.
Syntax can be overused.
When the mapping of syntactic possibilities begin to branch in too complex a fashion, then information is destroyed rather than conveyed.
KISS is good.
Parent post was not KISS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373786</id>
	<title>Careful</title>
	<author>PPH</author>
	<datestamp>1260289440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Violate Strunk and White just once and they'll fling shit at you.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Violate Strunk and White just once and they 'll fling shit at you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Violate Strunk and White just once and they'll fling shit at you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377646</id>
	<title>Re:Monkey syntax errors aren't so bad</title>
	<author>JustOK</author>
	<datestamp>1259600580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Those are actually Quantum Chimps talking about poo-mesons and so forth</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Those are actually Quantum Chimps talking about poo-mesons and so forth</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those are actually Quantum Chimps talking about poo-mesons and so forth</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377000</id>
	<title>Re:Meaning is not a key component of syntax.</title>
	<author>curtanderson</author>
	<datestamp>1259596800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Without syntax, words can only have one meaning.</p></div><p>But it's obviously untrue to say that words can only have one meaning without syntax. Children don't suddenly go from cooing to full sentences immediately, but they pass through a number of stages, one of which is the one word stage. In this stage the parents can get a grip on what the child wants a lot of times, even though the child is completely lacking in syntax. For example, the child can say "up!" and have it interpreted a number of different ways in different contexts, from wanting to be picked up, to pointing at something high in order to bring it to the attention of the parents, to wanting the parent to play with the child by throwing a ball into the air.

You have it backwards, as another poster pointed out. You can have meaning without syntax, but the variety of things you can coherently communicate to someone is increased with syntax. And likewise, you can have syntax without meaning, as long as each word fits grammatically into the sentence. And furthermore, semantics and syntax can be divorced from phonological representations -- we're doing it right now on this page.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without syntax , words can only have one meaning.But it 's obviously untrue to say that words can only have one meaning without syntax .
Children do n't suddenly go from cooing to full sentences immediately , but they pass through a number of stages , one of which is the one word stage .
In this stage the parents can get a grip on what the child wants a lot of times , even though the child is completely lacking in syntax .
For example , the child can say " up !
" and have it interpreted a number of different ways in different contexts , from wanting to be picked up , to pointing at something high in order to bring it to the attention of the parents , to wanting the parent to play with the child by throwing a ball into the air .
You have it backwards , as another poster pointed out .
You can have meaning without syntax , but the variety of things you can coherently communicate to someone is increased with syntax .
And likewise , you can have syntax without meaning , as long as each word fits grammatically into the sentence .
And furthermore , semantics and syntax can be divorced from phonological representations -- we 're doing it right now on this page .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without syntax, words can only have one meaning.But it's obviously untrue to say that words can only have one meaning without syntax.
Children don't suddenly go from cooing to full sentences immediately, but they pass through a number of stages, one of which is the one word stage.
In this stage the parents can get a grip on what the child wants a lot of times, even though the child is completely lacking in syntax.
For example, the child can say "up!
" and have it interpreted a number of different ways in different contexts, from wanting to be picked up, to pointing at something high in order to bring it to the attention of the parents, to wanting the parent to play with the child by throwing a ball into the air.
You have it backwards, as another poster pointed out.
You can have meaning without syntax, but the variety of things you can coherently communicate to someone is increased with syntax.
And likewise, you can have syntax without meaning, as long as each word fits grammatically into the sentence.
And furthermore, semantics and syntax can be divorced from phonological representations -- we're doing it right now on this page.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376246</id>
	<title>Re:PNAS</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1259590740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is why I like<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. It's a sanctuary of wisdom in this world of dumbness. Where us, the enlightened,  above-average IQ, well-formed and educated people can gather together to discuss the most profound topics knowing that any silly comment will get inevitably modded down thanks to the peer modding system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is why I like / .
It 's a sanctuary of wisdom in this world of dumbness .
Where us , the enlightened , above-average IQ , well-formed and educated people can gather together to discuss the most profound topics knowing that any silly comment will get inevitably modded down thanks to the peer modding system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is why I like /.
It's a sanctuary of wisdom in this world of dumbness.
Where us, the enlightened,  above-average IQ, well-formed and educated people can gather together to discuss the most profound topics knowing that any silly comment will get inevitably modded down thanks to the peer modding system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373712</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>ifchairscouldtalk</author>
	<datestamp>1260289440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax.</p></div><p>I must assume that you have never heard Dubya speaking.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax , because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax.I must assume that you have never heard Dubya speaking .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax.I must assume that you have never heard Dubya speaking.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30380468</id>
	<title>Re:Is the word for "leopard" really "tree"?</title>
	<author>RedBear</author>
	<datestamp>1259573580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is really quite a brilliant deduction. If I were writing a science fiction story about beings who spend most of their lives in trees, it would make perfect sense that their language, primitive or otherwise, would be largely based on constructs that communicate various aspects of their interaction with trees.</p><p>For a monkey, trees are life, home, bed, protector, transportation, food provider, play room, birthplace, battleground, and many other things. There would be almost no need to communicate any idea in their world that would require talking about anything but trees. It would be so intrinsic to their communication that even if they were sentient they probably would never think about the fact that their language was based on talking about trees. The ground would be "not-tree-place". Everything that doesn't live in a tree would be a "not-tree-person". A falling tree would be "tree-bad". And so on.</p><p>If this is the case, and if they were sentient or even semi-sentient, it would be dastardly difficult to communicate any new ideas to them about the existence of any object or concept that can't be related to a tree in some way. It would make translating between such vastly different languages as Chinese and English, which often requires very loose translations on both sides, seem like child's play in comparison. Simple concepts that in English might only require a single word would have to be translated into long strings of tree-related phrases that would only roughly approximate the English meaning. Anything that couldn't be somehow related to a tree-phrase at all would be completely incomprehensible to them and totally untranslatable.</p><p>Fascinating to think about. Extending it in the opposite direction, would a species much more advanced than us have difficulty translating some of their more advanced concepts into our languages in a way that we could understand, or are our brains advanced enough that our communication mechanisms approach a theoretical communication complexity limit, such that any possible concept remaining in the universe could be easily translated for us?</p><p>Surely some linguistic mathematicians have already attempted to figure this out. Are there higher "dimensions" of communication that can be easily represented by semantic or syntactic calculations but which our brains would not be capable of comprehending in language form, in the same way that our brains can't natively comprehend physical dimensions beyond the third dimension while our mathematics can clearly represent hundreds? Are these higher semantic dimensions, if they exist, only theoretical or could they exist in nature?</p><p>Brain hurt. Must return to tree...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is really quite a brilliant deduction .
If I were writing a science fiction story about beings who spend most of their lives in trees , it would make perfect sense that their language , primitive or otherwise , would be largely based on constructs that communicate various aspects of their interaction with trees.For a monkey , trees are life , home , bed , protector , transportation , food provider , play room , birthplace , battleground , and many other things .
There would be almost no need to communicate any idea in their world that would require talking about anything but trees .
It would be so intrinsic to their communication that even if they were sentient they probably would never think about the fact that their language was based on talking about trees .
The ground would be " not-tree-place " .
Everything that does n't live in a tree would be a " not-tree-person " .
A falling tree would be " tree-bad " .
And so on.If this is the case , and if they were sentient or even semi-sentient , it would be dastardly difficult to communicate any new ideas to them about the existence of any object or concept that ca n't be related to a tree in some way .
It would make translating between such vastly different languages as Chinese and English , which often requires very loose translations on both sides , seem like child 's play in comparison .
Simple concepts that in English might only require a single word would have to be translated into long strings of tree-related phrases that would only roughly approximate the English meaning .
Anything that could n't be somehow related to a tree-phrase at all would be completely incomprehensible to them and totally untranslatable.Fascinating to think about .
Extending it in the opposite direction , would a species much more advanced than us have difficulty translating some of their more advanced concepts into our languages in a way that we could understand , or are our brains advanced enough that our communication mechanisms approach a theoretical communication complexity limit , such that any possible concept remaining in the universe could be easily translated for us ? Surely some linguistic mathematicians have already attempted to figure this out .
Are there higher " dimensions " of communication that can be easily represented by semantic or syntactic calculations but which our brains would not be capable of comprehending in language form , in the same way that our brains ca n't natively comprehend physical dimensions beyond the third dimension while our mathematics can clearly represent hundreds ?
Are these higher semantic dimensions , if they exist , only theoretical or could they exist in nature ? Brain hurt .
Must return to tree.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is really quite a brilliant deduction.
If I were writing a science fiction story about beings who spend most of their lives in trees, it would make perfect sense that their language, primitive or otherwise, would be largely based on constructs that communicate various aspects of their interaction with trees.For a monkey, trees are life, home, bed, protector, transportation, food provider, play room, birthplace, battleground, and many other things.
There would be almost no need to communicate any idea in their world that would require talking about anything but trees.
It would be so intrinsic to their communication that even if they were sentient they probably would never think about the fact that their language was based on talking about trees.
The ground would be "not-tree-place".
Everything that doesn't live in a tree would be a "not-tree-person".
A falling tree would be "tree-bad".
And so on.If this is the case, and if they were sentient or even semi-sentient, it would be dastardly difficult to communicate any new ideas to them about the existence of any object or concept that can't be related to a tree in some way.
It would make translating between such vastly different languages as Chinese and English, which often requires very loose translations on both sides, seem like child's play in comparison.
Simple concepts that in English might only require a single word would have to be translated into long strings of tree-related phrases that would only roughly approximate the English meaning.
Anything that couldn't be somehow related to a tree-phrase at all would be completely incomprehensible to them and totally untranslatable.Fascinating to think about.
Extending it in the opposite direction, would a species much more advanced than us have difficulty translating some of their more advanced concepts into our languages in a way that we could understand, or are our brains advanced enough that our communication mechanisms approach a theoretical communication complexity limit, such that any possible concept remaining in the universe could be easily translated for us?Surely some linguistic mathematicians have already attempted to figure this out.
Are there higher "dimensions" of communication that can be easily represented by semantic or syntactic calculations but which our brains would not be capable of comprehending in language form, in the same way that our brains can't natively comprehend physical dimensions beyond the third dimension while our mathematics can clearly represent hundreds?
Are these higher semantic dimensions, if they exist, only theoretical or could they exist in nature?Brain hurt.
Must return to tree...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373990</id>
	<title>Re:Backstage evolution pass?</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1260291660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>will become more complex. given a few thousand years</i></p><p>I think you're off by a few orders of magnitude.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>will become more complex .
given a few thousand yearsI think you 're off by a few orders of magnitude .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>will become more complex.
given a few thousand yearsI think you're off by a few orders of magnitude.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374846</id>
	<title>Re:Meaning is not a key component of syntax.</title>
	<author>ArsenneLupin</author>
	<datestamp>1259612220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Without meaning, syntax can't exist.</p></div><p>Shouldn't that be the other way round?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Without meaning , syntax ca n't exist.Should n't that be the other way round ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Without meaning, syntax can't exist.Shouldn't that be the other way round?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374668</id>
	<title>But don't do that on your vax!</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1260301080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But first, be sure to mount a scratch monkey!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p><a href="http://edp.org/monkey.htm" title="edp.org">http://edp.org/monkey.htm</a> [edp.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But first , be sure to mount a scratch monkey !
: ) http : //edp.org/monkey.htm [ edp.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But first, be sure to mount a scratch monkey!
:)http://edp.org/monkey.htm [edp.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373826</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378832</id>
	<title>Re:Is the word for "leopard" really "tree"?</title>
	<author>pwfffff</author>
	<datestamp>1259607180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It read just fine to me. Try reading more books and less twitter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It read just fine to me .
Try reading more books and less twitter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It read just fine to me.
Try reading more books and less twitter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378250</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956</id>
	<title>It depends what one means by syntax...</title>
	<author>Estanislao Martínez</author>
	<datestamp>1260291360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure there'll be a lot of enlightening commentary about this pretty soon, but my first reaction to it is that the example cited by TFA is not clearly syntactic, in the strictest linguistic sense.  Look, for example, at this quote:</p><blockquote><div><p>"Krak" is a call that warns of leopards in the vicinity. The monkeys gave it in response to real leopards and to model leopards or leopard growls broadcast by the researchers. The monkeys can vary the call by adding the suffix "-oo": "krak-oo" seems to be a general word for predator, but one given in a special context -- when monkeys hear but do not see a predator, or when they hear the alarm calls of another species known as the Diana monkey.

</p><p>The "boom-boom" call invites other monkeys to come toward the male making the sound. Two booms can be combined with a series of "krak-oos," with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components. "Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo" is the monkey's version of "Timber!" -- it warns of falling trees.</p></div></blockquote><p>So, the meaning we are told for "krak-oo" is not a clear function of the meanings of "krak" and "-oo."  The second paragraph makes an even more problematic claim: "boom" and "krak-oo," combined together, means something completely different than the parts.

</p><p>What's the problem with this?  That one of the paradigmatic properties of syntactic constructions in human language is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle\_of\_compositionality" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">compositionality</a> [wikipedia.org], the principle that the meaning of an expression made of parts A and B is a function of the meanings of A and B themselves, and of the manner in which they are combined in the expression.  So the meaning of <i>Dog bites man</i> is a function of the meanings of the words, and the way in which they are combined (so that it doesn't mean the same thing as <i>Man bites dog</i>).

</p><p>This doesn't mean that there isn't no non-compositionality in human language, or even in syntax, but rather that compositionality is typical of syntax, and noncompositionality is typical of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morphology\_(linguistics)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">morphology</a> [wikipedia.org].  There's in fact <b>tons</b> of noncompositionality in human language, but it's hard to argue that monkeys have a semblance of human language unless you can clearly argue that the meanings of the subparts of the complex calls combine compositionally.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure there 'll be a lot of enlightening commentary about this pretty soon , but my first reaction to it is that the example cited by TFA is not clearly syntactic , in the strictest linguistic sense .
Look , for example , at this quote : " Krak " is a call that warns of leopards in the vicinity .
The monkeys gave it in response to real leopards and to model leopards or leopard growls broadcast by the researchers .
The monkeys can vary the call by adding the suffix " -oo " : " krak-oo " seems to be a general word for predator , but one given in a special context -- when monkeys hear but do not see a predator , or when they hear the alarm calls of another species known as the Diana monkey .
The " boom-boom " call invites other monkeys to come toward the male making the sound .
Two booms can be combined with a series of " krak-oos , " with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components .
" Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo " is the monkey 's version of " Timber !
" -- it warns of falling trees.So , the meaning we are told for " krak-oo " is not a clear function of the meanings of " krak " and " -oo .
" The second paragraph makes an even more problematic claim : " boom " and " krak-oo , " combined together , means something completely different than the parts .
What 's the problem with this ?
That one of the paradigmatic properties of syntactic constructions in human language is compositionality [ wikipedia.org ] , the principle that the meaning of an expression made of parts A and B is a function of the meanings of A and B themselves , and of the manner in which they are combined in the expression .
So the meaning of Dog bites man is a function of the meanings of the words , and the way in which they are combined ( so that it does n't mean the same thing as Man bites dog ) .
This does n't mean that there is n't no non-compositionality in human language , or even in syntax , but rather that compositionality is typical of syntax , and noncompositionality is typical of morphology [ wikipedia.org ] .
There 's in fact tons of noncompositionality in human language , but it 's hard to argue that monkeys have a semblance of human language unless you can clearly argue that the meanings of the subparts of the complex calls combine compositionally .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure there'll be a lot of enlightening commentary about this pretty soon, but my first reaction to it is that the example cited by TFA is not clearly syntactic, in the strictest linguistic sense.
Look, for example, at this quote:"Krak" is a call that warns of leopards in the vicinity.
The monkeys gave it in response to real leopards and to model leopards or leopard growls broadcast by the researchers.
The monkeys can vary the call by adding the suffix "-oo": "krak-oo" seems to be a general word for predator, but one given in a special context -- when monkeys hear but do not see a predator, or when they hear the alarm calls of another species known as the Diana monkey.
The "boom-boom" call invites other monkeys to come toward the male making the sound.
Two booms can be combined with a series of "krak-oos," with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components.
"Boom boom krak-oo krak-oo krak-oo" is the monkey's version of "Timber!
" -- it warns of falling trees.So, the meaning we are told for "krak-oo" is not a clear function of the meanings of "krak" and "-oo.
"  The second paragraph makes an even more problematic claim: "boom" and "krak-oo," combined together, means something completely different than the parts.
What's the problem with this?
That one of the paradigmatic properties of syntactic constructions in human language is compositionality [wikipedia.org], the principle that the meaning of an expression made of parts A and B is a function of the meanings of A and B themselves, and of the manner in which they are combined in the expression.
So the meaning of Dog bites man is a function of the meanings of the words, and the way in which they are combined (so that it doesn't mean the same thing as Man bites dog).
This doesn't mean that there isn't no non-compositionality in human language, or even in syntax, but rather that compositionality is typical of syntax, and noncompositionality is typical of morphology [wikipedia.org].
There's in fact tons of noncompositionality in human language, but it's hard to argue that monkeys have a semblance of human language unless you can clearly argue that the meanings of the subparts of the complex calls combine compositionally.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373670</id>
	<title>Monkey talk</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260288180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt; The Campbell's monkey has a vocabulary with at least six types of basic call, but [...] they combine them and string them together to communicate new meanings.</p><p>Funny.  Sounds just like a recently departed president.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; The Campbell 's monkey has a vocabulary with at least six types of basic call , but [ ... ] they combine them and string them together to communicate new meanings.Funny .
Sounds just like a recently departed president .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt; The Campbell's monkey has a vocabulary with at least six types of basic call, but [...] they combine them and string them together to communicate new meanings.Funny.
Sounds just like a recently departed president.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374620</id>
	<title>Re:Monkey syntax errors aren't so bad</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260300480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On an anecdote: A friend of mine told me that in South Africa, you see groups of monkeys roaming the streets like gangs. They come to the house, steal the food, and destroy everything.</p><p>But he saw them on the street, and a poor dog got into their way. They <em>literally</em> ripped the dog into pieces!<br>Bear in mind that they have a pull strength up to 1700 pounds!<br>So you can imagine the mess and gore of it. With blood and bowels all over the place.</p><p>No messin&rsquo; around with those little bastards! ^^</p><p>(Think about it: If we still were cavemen, then we'd be able to overpower even them. Sad that humans got so weak.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:/)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On an anecdote : A friend of mine told me that in South Africa , you see groups of monkeys roaming the streets like gangs .
They come to the house , steal the food , and destroy everything.But he saw them on the street , and a poor dog got into their way .
They literally ripped the dog into pieces ! Bear in mind that they have a pull strength up to 1700 pounds ! So you can imagine the mess and gore of it .
With blood and bowels all over the place.No messin    around with those little bastards !
^ ^ ( Think about it : If we still were cavemen , then we 'd be able to overpower even them .
Sad that humans got so weak .
: / )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On an anecdote: A friend of mine told me that in South Africa, you see groups of monkeys roaming the streets like gangs.
They come to the house, steal the food, and destroy everything.But he saw them on the street, and a poor dog got into their way.
They literally ripped the dog into pieces!Bear in mind that they have a pull strength up to 1700 pounds!So you can imagine the mess and gore of it.
With blood and bowels all over the place.No messin’ around with those little bastards!
^^(Think about it: If we still were cavemen, then we'd be able to overpower even them.
Sad that humans got so weak.
:/)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374192</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260294720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What they need to do now is get a linguist in there so slice &amp; dice the recordings, play them back to the monkeys in various reconstructed forms, and see how they react.</p></div><p>No no no.</p><p>Aphex Twin.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What they need to do now is get a linguist in there so slice &amp; dice the recordings , play them back to the monkeys in various reconstructed forms , and see how they react.No no no.Aphex Twin .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What they need to do now is get a linguist in there so slice &amp; dice the recordings, play them back to the monkeys in various reconstructed forms, and see how they react.No no no.Aphex Twin.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714</id>
	<title>Backstage evolution pass?</title>
	<author>sick\_em</author>
	<datestamp>1260288600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>what seems the most interesting to me is that when you think about it, should the monkeys go on as they do, communication will become more complex. given a few thousand years and a very luckily unscathed civilization and habitat (ha...), does anyone else not find the idea of them eventually forming some semblance of civilization possible, and intriguing?

personally i say seal the suckers off and go god complex on their asses, time to play some real life spore</htmltext>
<tokenext>what seems the most interesting to me is that when you think about it , should the monkeys go on as they do , communication will become more complex .
given a few thousand years and a very luckily unscathed civilization and habitat ( ha... ) , does anyone else not find the idea of them eventually forming some semblance of civilization possible , and intriguing ?
personally i say seal the suckers off and go god complex on their asses , time to play some real life spore</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what seems the most interesting to me is that when you think about it, should the monkeys go on as they do, communication will become more complex.
given a few thousand years and a very luckily unscathed civilization and habitat (ha...), does anyone else not find the idea of them eventually forming some semblance of civilization possible, and intriguing?
personally i say seal the suckers off and go god complex on their asses, time to play some real life spore</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Nutria</author>
	<datestamp>1260291360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I must assume that you have never heard Dubya speaking.</i></p><p>The war is over, you won, W is gone.  Now <b>GIVE IT A FUCKING REST ALREADY!!!!</b></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I must assume that you have never heard Dubya speaking.The war is over , you won , W is gone .
Now GIVE IT A FUCKING REST ALREADY ! ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I must assume that you have never heard Dubya speaking.The war is over, you won, W is gone.
Now GIVE IT A FUCKING REST ALREADY!!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30382302</id>
	<title>Re:It was the blurst of times.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259581980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fuck you, you shriveled dick worthless shit for brains moderators, I've got a god-damned point.</p><p>Nope, some how I get modded down and el HanzoSpam is given a pass. Brilliant.</p><p>how about:</p><p>
&nbsp; "Religious Freedom" - the freedom to bitch slap religious people.<br>
&nbsp; "Human Rights" - The right to fuck the right, right in the ass.</p><p>I mean come on, that "Social Justice" shit isn't even witty. It's the adult on the Internet equivalent of saying "no your stupid". It is JUST hateful. That's it, nothing else, HanzoSpam is simply not very good at developing or communicating his political views and so s/he resorts to threats of violence. WEAK, WEAK, WEAK!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fuck you , you shriveled dick worthless shit for brains moderators , I 've got a god-damned point.Nope , some how I get modded down and el HanzoSpam is given a pass .
Brilliant.how about :   " Religious Freedom " - the freedom to bitch slap religious people .
  " Human Rights " - The right to fuck the right , right in the ass.I mean come on , that " Social Justice " shit is n't even witty .
It 's the adult on the Internet equivalent of saying " no your stupid " .
It is JUST hateful .
That 's it , nothing else , HanzoSpam is simply not very good at developing or communicating his political views and so s/he resorts to threats of violence .
WEAK , WEAK , WEAK ! !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fuck you, you shriveled dick worthless shit for brains moderators, I've got a god-damned point.Nope, some how I get modded down and el HanzoSpam is given a pass.
Brilliant.how about:
  "Religious Freedom" - the freedom to bitch slap religious people.
  "Human Rights" - The right to fuck the right, right in the ass.I mean come on, that "Social Justice" shit isn't even witty.
It's the adult on the Internet equivalent of saying "no your stupid".
It is JUST hateful.
That's it, nothing else, HanzoSpam is simply not very good at developing or communicating his political views and so s/he resorts to threats of violence.
WEAK, WEAK, WEAK!!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375510</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376712</id>
	<title>Re:Is the word for "leopard" really "tree"?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259594700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except leopards can climb trees.  And drag their downed prey up with them to eat it there.  "Get up in the tree" isn't necessarily safe from them, by any means.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except leopards can climb trees .
And drag their downed prey up with them to eat it there .
" Get up in the tree " is n't necessarily safe from them , by any means .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except leopards can climb trees.
And drag their downed prey up with them to eat it there.
"Get up in the tree" isn't necessarily safe from them, by any means.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Internalist</author>
	<datestamp>1260290460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language. You have have 1 trillion different words in a language, and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words, that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.</p></div><p>While this is true, it's not clear to me that what's documented here is, in fact, syntax. The researcher in question (Zuberb&#252;hler) has written about this stuff before and has been much more cautious in attributing full-on linguistic properties (a search of LanguageLog will turn something up from 2006).</p><p>I'll reserve absolute judgment for when I get a chance to look at the actual paper, but this quote from NYT gives me pause: <i>Two booms can be combined with a series of "krak-oos," with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components.</i> This is not (typically) how human language works...meaning is compositionally built up from bits of syntax, whereas what's described here looks more like idiom. In fact, it looks more like phonology (*maybe* morphology) to me...meaningless bits that can be put together to make meaningful bits.</p><p>What they need to do now is get a linguist in there so slice &amp; dice the recordings, play them back to the monkeys in various reconstructed forms, and see how they react.</p><p>Also...</p><p><div class="quote"><p>[...] a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntax</p></div><p>some would argue against the subordinate clause here (pointing at Piraha, for example), but I'm not one of those. However, it might be the case that this "syntax" has developed in parallel to human syntax from some common protolanguage (since these are monkeys and not even apes, we're talking REALLY far back), and so this may be relatively uninformative with respect to human syntax.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language .
You have have 1 trillion different words in a language , and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words , that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.While this is true , it 's not clear to me that what 's documented here is , in fact , syntax .
The researcher in question ( Zuberb   hler ) has written about this stuff before and has been much more cautious in attributing full-on linguistic properties ( a search of LanguageLog will turn something up from 2006 ) .I 'll reserve absolute judgment for when I get a chance to look at the actual paper , but this quote from NYT gives me pause : Two booms can be combined with a series of " krak-oos , " with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components .
This is not ( typically ) how human language works...meaning is compositionally built up from bits of syntax , whereas what 's described here looks more like idiom .
In fact , it looks more like phonology ( * maybe * morphology ) to me...meaningless bits that can be put together to make meaningful bits.What they need to do now is get a linguist in there so slice &amp; dice the recordings , play them back to the monkeys in various reconstructed forms , and see how they react.Also... [ ... ] a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax , because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntaxsome would argue against the subordinate clause here ( pointing at Piraha , for example ) , but I 'm not one of those .
However , it might be the case that this " syntax " has developed in parallel to human syntax from some common protolanguage ( since these are monkeys and not even apes , we 're talking REALLY far back ) , and so this may be relatively uninformative with respect to human syntax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Those scientists who have been studying animal language as a non-pseudoscience have been waiting for anyone to show SYNTAX in animal language.
You have have 1 trillion different words in a language, and it has a finite range of expressions... meanwhile you can have 10 different words, that with the right syntax can generate an infinite range of expressions.While this is true, it's not clear to me that what's documented here is, in fact, syntax.
The researcher in question (Zuberbühler) has written about this stuff before and has been much more cautious in attributing full-on linguistic properties (a search of LanguageLog will turn something up from 2006).I'll reserve absolute judgment for when I get a chance to look at the actual paper, but this quote from NYT gives me pause: Two booms can be combined with a series of "krak-oos," with a meaning entirely different to that of either of its components.
This is not (typically) how human language works...meaning is compositionally built up from bits of syntax, whereas what's described here looks more like idiom.
In fact, it looks more like phonology (*maybe* morphology) to me...meaningless bits that can be put together to make meaningful bits.What they need to do now is get a linguist in there so slice &amp; dice the recordings, play them back to the monkeys in various reconstructed forms, and see how they react.Also...[...] a chance to really look at a real proto-syntax, because all human languages have a very strongly developed syntaxsome would argue against the subordinate clause here (pointing at Piraha, for example), but I'm not one of those.
However, it might be the case that this "syntax" has developed in parallel to human syntax from some common protolanguage (since these are monkeys and not even apes, we're talking REALLY far back), and so this may be relatively uninformative with respect to human syntax.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30384312</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>snowgirl</author>
	<datestamp>1259595420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I even speak American Sign Language, and I know that it's just as much a language as any other language.  But consider this stuff:</p><p>Noam Chimpsky had a native sign-language speaker observing his signing.  That native signer submitted less signs signed by Noam Chimpsky than any other observer... he then rigorously observed himself and others to determine the cause of this difference.  He then realized, that other observers were indicating signs that were not valid words.</p><p>When I talk about someone cutting me off on the road, I don't use a single sign for "cutting off".  I sign that I am driving, and using classifiers, I indicate which car is me, and which car is them, and use non-verbal gestures to indicate the actions taken by the other driver.</p><p>No one denies that Kiko uses signs, and uses signs in simple combinations.  However, building compound words is not considered syntax in linguistics, it's morphology.</p><p>Kiko speaks sign language as if speaking a pidgin... with no defined or consistent syntax.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I even speak American Sign Language , and I know that it 's just as much a language as any other language .
But consider this stuff : Noam Chimpsky had a native sign-language speaker observing his signing .
That native signer submitted less signs signed by Noam Chimpsky than any other observer... he then rigorously observed himself and others to determine the cause of this difference .
He then realized , that other observers were indicating signs that were not valid words.When I talk about someone cutting me off on the road , I do n't use a single sign for " cutting off " .
I sign that I am driving , and using classifiers , I indicate which car is me , and which car is them , and use non-verbal gestures to indicate the actions taken by the other driver.No one denies that Kiko uses signs , and uses signs in simple combinations .
However , building compound words is not considered syntax in linguistics , it 's morphology.Kiko speaks sign language as if speaking a pidgin... with no defined or consistent syntax .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I even speak American Sign Language, and I know that it's just as much a language as any other language.
But consider this stuff:Noam Chimpsky had a native sign-language speaker observing his signing.
That native signer submitted less signs signed by Noam Chimpsky than any other observer... he then rigorously observed himself and others to determine the cause of this difference.
He then realized, that other observers were indicating signs that were not valid words.When I talk about someone cutting me off on the road, I don't use a single sign for "cutting off".
I sign that I am driving, and using classifiers, I indicate which car is me, and which car is them, and use non-verbal gestures to indicate the actions taken by the other driver.No one denies that Kiko uses signs, and uses signs in simple combinations.
However, building compound words is not considered syntax in linguistics, it's morphology.Kiko speaks sign language as if speaking a pidgin... with no defined or consistent syntax.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375730</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375906</id>
	<title>Re:Monkey syntax errors aren't so bad</title>
	<author>DynaSoar</author>
	<datestamp>1259586420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I normally never pick at someone's wording, especially a signature, but this article and this thread in particular simply begs me to bag this one:</p><p>by istartedi (132515): "For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares?"</p><p>"For all intent and purposes" is no longer a valid common phrase. It was first replaced by "for all intents and purposes", the plural of 'intent' being unnecessary to the phrase, but 'intent' being often replaecd by 'intentions' it seemed logical to pluralize the former as well as the latter. It has since been replaced by the homonymous "for all intensive purposes". The meaning is retained ("for all practical purposes") despite that fact that the presented form makes no sense: 'intensive' is an adjective, 'purposes' is a noun. Furthermore, to express "for all practical purposes" it seems adequate to express the superset "for all purposes", particularly since the opposite of intensive purposes (unintensive purposes) clearly makes no sense, and that makes the modifier on 'purposes' superfluous.</p><p>On the other hand, there may in fact be situations where the construction here applies, such as those purposes to which it could be put to use, but which require exceptional effort to do so. For example, a common purpose for posting om<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is to correct someone. A post that corrects someone but takes an inordinate amount of effort to follow, as compared to the usefulness of it being done, could be considered an "intensive purpose" for posting. Yet, despite this post being an example of this possible use, requiring intensive attention to follow it this far, nobody ever uses is that way. I know I certainly don't.</p><p>And just in case this needs to be turned back toward the subject at hand in order to stay on topic, much of animal expression is not considered language or anything like it because it is 'just animal sounds'. Yet the above, despite being full of syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and for all I know, semiotics, is just 'human sounds' with no more practical application that 'correcting' a phrase so common that everybody understands it and would probably recognize its meaning for readily than that of the 'correct' version, which is so dated and superceded that it probably sounds wrong now.</p><p>Now, thanks to the 'preview' function, I've seen all the errors in the post above. I'm leaving them. You understood anyway. So much for 'correct'.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I normally never pick at someone 's wording , especially a signature , but this article and this thread in particular simply begs me to bag this one : by istartedi ( 132515 ) : " For all intensive purposes , " whom " is no longer a word .
That begs the question , " who cares ?
" " For all intent and purposes " is no longer a valid common phrase .
It was first replaced by " for all intents and purposes " , the plural of 'intent ' being unnecessary to the phrase , but 'intent ' being often replaecd by 'intentions ' it seemed logical to pluralize the former as well as the latter .
It has since been replaced by the homonymous " for all intensive purposes " .
The meaning is retained ( " for all practical purposes " ) despite that fact that the presented form makes no sense : 'intensive ' is an adjective , 'purposes ' is a noun .
Furthermore , to express " for all practical purposes " it seems adequate to express the superset " for all purposes " , particularly since the opposite of intensive purposes ( unintensive purposes ) clearly makes no sense , and that makes the modifier on 'purposes ' superfluous.On the other hand , there may in fact be situations where the construction here applies , such as those purposes to which it could be put to use , but which require exceptional effort to do so .
For example , a common purpose for posting om / .
is to correct someone .
A post that corrects someone but takes an inordinate amount of effort to follow , as compared to the usefulness of it being done , could be considered an " intensive purpose " for posting .
Yet , despite this post being an example of this possible use , requiring intensive attention to follow it this far , nobody ever uses is that way .
I know I certainly do n't.And just in case this needs to be turned back toward the subject at hand in order to stay on topic , much of animal expression is not considered language or anything like it because it is 'just animal sounds' .
Yet the above , despite being full of syntax , semantics , pragmatics , and for all I know , semiotics , is just 'human sounds ' with no more practical application that 'correcting ' a phrase so common that everybody understands it and would probably recognize its meaning for readily than that of the 'correct ' version , which is so dated and superceded that it probably sounds wrong now.Now , thanks to the 'preview ' function , I 've seen all the errors in the post above .
I 'm leaving them .
You understood anyway .
So much for 'correct' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I normally never pick at someone's wording, especially a signature, but this article and this thread in particular simply begs me to bag this one:by istartedi (132515): "For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word.
That begs the question, "who cares?
""For all intent and purposes" is no longer a valid common phrase.
It was first replaced by "for all intents and purposes", the plural of 'intent' being unnecessary to the phrase, but 'intent' being often replaecd by 'intentions' it seemed logical to pluralize the former as well as the latter.
It has since been replaced by the homonymous "for all intensive purposes".
The meaning is retained ("for all practical purposes") despite that fact that the presented form makes no sense: 'intensive' is an adjective, 'purposes' is a noun.
Furthermore, to express "for all practical purposes" it seems adequate to express the superset "for all purposes", particularly since the opposite of intensive purposes (unintensive purposes) clearly makes no sense, and that makes the modifier on 'purposes' superfluous.On the other hand, there may in fact be situations where the construction here applies, such as those purposes to which it could be put to use, but which require exceptional effort to do so.
For example, a common purpose for posting om /.
is to correct someone.
A post that corrects someone but takes an inordinate amount of effort to follow, as compared to the usefulness of it being done, could be considered an "intensive purpose" for posting.
Yet, despite this post being an example of this possible use, requiring intensive attention to follow it this far, nobody ever uses is that way.
I know I certainly don't.And just in case this needs to be turned back toward the subject at hand in order to stay on topic, much of animal expression is not considered language or anything like it because it is 'just animal sounds'.
Yet the above, despite being full of syntax, semantics, pragmatics, and for all I know, semiotics, is just 'human sounds' with no more practical application that 'correcting' a phrase so common that everybody understands it and would probably recognize its meaning for readily than that of the 'correct' version, which is so dated and superceded that it probably sounds wrong now.Now, thanks to the 'preview' function, I've seen all the errors in the post above.
I'm leaving them.
You understood anyway.
So much for 'correct'.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374676</id>
	<title>Re:This is what linguists have been waiting for</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1260301200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Protip: *Every* time you see anyone going &ldquo;Humans are the only ones who can do this!&ldquo; or &ldquo;We are the center of $something.&rdquo;, without haven proven that to be true for a fact, you know you got an arrogant egocentric asshole in front of you, who is no better than a 19th century person going &ldquo;We are the better race. Only we are real humans. The Earth is the center of the universe. Animals don't *really* think. They are just empty shells. Things without soul or feelings. Just as women, they don not *really* think like we do. And there are no other lifeforms elsewhere. That&rsquo;s how special we are. $bullshit God $moreBullshit chosen $evenMoreBullshit&rdquo;.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Protip : * Every * time you see anyone going    Humans are the only ones who can do this !    or    We are the center of $ something.    , without haven proven that to be true for a fact , you know you got an arrogant egocentric asshole in front of you , who is no better than a 19th century person going    We are the better race .
Only we are real humans .
The Earth is the center of the universe .
Animals do n't * really * think .
They are just empty shells .
Things without soul or feelings .
Just as women , they don not * really * think like we do .
And there are no other lifeforms elsewhere .
That    s how special we are .
$ bullshit God $ moreBullshit chosen $ evenMoreBullshit    .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Protip: *Every* time you see anyone going “Humans are the only ones who can do this!“ or “We are the center of $something.”, without haven proven that to be true for a fact, you know you got an arrogant egocentric asshole in front of you, who is no better than a 19th century person going “We are the better race.
Only we are real humans.
The Earth is the center of the universe.
Animals don't *really* think.
They are just empty shells.
Things without soul or feelings.
Just as women, they don not *really* think like we do.
And there are no other lifeforms elsewhere.
That’s how special we are.
$bullshit God $moreBullshit chosen $evenMoreBullshit”.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374452
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378582
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375906
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374126
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376696
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30379140
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378832
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378250
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374656
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30383142
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374676
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376712
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374072
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374026
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374504
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377000
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30380468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30380718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374064
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30384312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375730
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375494
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375506
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374116
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376246
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373712
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375018
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375776
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374782
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374088
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30382302
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375510
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376784
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374668
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373826
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377312
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_08_2238248_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375286
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376246
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374092
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375510
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30382302
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30380718
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374504
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373594
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373920
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373586
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377646
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374620
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375494
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375906
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374116
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373714
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374064
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30379140
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373956
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375286
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374126
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375018
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375134
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378582
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374914
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373826
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374668
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373722
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373634
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374894
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375730
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30384312
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373868
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376784
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374026
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374072
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375776
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374088
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374192
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30383142
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378250
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30378832
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30380468
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376712
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373788
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373960
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30376696
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374656
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374452
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377312
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30375466
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373610
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374540
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30377000
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30374846
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_08_2238248.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_08_2238248.30373696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
