Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex
From: wex@milano.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.cog-eng,net.research
Subject: Re: Utterances
Message-ID: <2133@milano.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 22-Aug-86 13:23:53 EDT
Article-I.D.: milano.2133
Posted: Fri Aug 22 13:23:53 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 22-Aug-86 22:01:00 EDT
References: <639@bcsaic.UUCP> <792@aimmi.UUCP>
Sender: wex@milano.UUCP
Distribution: net
Organization: MCC, Austin, TX
Lines: 30
Summary: what makes an utterance "new"?
Xref: mnetor net.cog-eng:261 net.research:408

In article <792@aimmi.UUCP>, gilbert@aimmi.UUCP (Gilbert Cockton) writes:
> In article <639@bcsaic.UUCP> douglas@bcsaic.UUCP writes:
> >What percentage of the utterances made in the world have been made before?
>
> Depends where you are and how clockwork the people are. Put yourself
> amongst a group of high conformers and you could be up to 80%. I find
> some stereotype-fitting groups (e.g. Sloans, provincial business men,
> Militants, Born-again Christians, worn out Trade Unionists,
> politicians, usenet policemen, etc. etc. ad nauseam) boringly predictable.

I think that Mr. Cockton misinterprets the original posting, but does so in
an interesting way.  It seemed to me that the original request had to do
with linguistic repetitions, where a sentence is repeated word-for-word.
(Aside: do translations count?)

What Cockton has done is to cast the question in the semantic domain by
remarking on some people's lack of original thought.  It is not important
what words they use; the ideas are repeated.  That leads to the interesting
question: "how much thought is original?"  If the answer is low, then ought
we emphasize `research' that's just sophisticated searching of previously-
recorded knowledge?

-- 
Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {ihnp4, seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex

"It is quite impossible for any design to be `the logical outcome of the
requirements' simply because, the requirements being in conflict, their
logical outcome is an impossibility."