From: Brian M. Scott
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Brian M. Scott"Ah, okay; I really was thinking in terms of this specific
> <BMScott@...> wrote:
>> At 4:18:22 PM on Sunday, February 5, 2006, Richard
>> Wordingham wrote:
>>> --- In email@example.com, "Brian M. Scott"
>>> <BMScott@> wrote:
>>> Some radar systems regularly search for and find signals
>>> that are way below the level of noise.
>> But under what circumstances? I'm no engineer, but I
>> suspect that this requires knowing a good deal about the
>> nature of at least the noise and quite possibly the signal
>> as well, and probably not just qualitatively, either.
> That much is true; this was largely meant as a warning
> about glibly saying something is lost in the noise.
>> It's not clear that it's possible to have that kind ofI'm pretty sure that I'm more pessimistic than you, but I
>> knowledge about language, and we certainly don't have it
> It's probably not being applied numerically, but I'm not
> so sure we don't have the knowledge. I suspect we need to
> apply information from the daunting field of semantics,
> but I also fear that that will only allow us to go a
> little way below the level of the noise. A crude example
> is looking for word families to eliminate recent loans.
> On the noise side, we may well have the problem that,The sort of thing that John Lawler looks at and, more
> statistically speaking, the association between sound and
> meaning is not arbitrary.
> We are straying well off-topic, but I'm not sure where toThis is probably as good a place as any from my point of
> divert this discussion.