The lack of operational hierarchical structure in the Deep Learning ANN neural networks

A survey paper on the issues of Deep Learning by Gray Marcus: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1801/1801.00631.pdf

The author has a valuable mix of expertise both in the ANN development and in linguistics, developmental psychology, cognitive psychology.

There are good points on the lack of real hierarchical structure in (current/regular) DL/ANN, accenting that they are actually "flat", even though there are "layers" which gives a confusing impression.

"To a linguist like Noam Chomsky, the troubles Jia and Liang documented would be
unsurprising. Fundamentally, most current deep-learning based language models
represent sentences as mere sequences of words, whereas Chomsky has long argued that
language has a hierarchical structure, in which larger structures are recursively
constructed out of smaller components"

G.Marcus p.9

See also Jeff Hawkins point since 2004 "On Intelligence"/Numenta, Dileep George's Vicarious, Boris Kazachenko's "Cognitive Algorithm"; the old Hierarchical Markov Models; probably many other researchers, also myself since my early 2000s writings where even I as a teenager have realized that human general intelligence faculty is a Hierarchical simulator and predictor of virtual universes.

The ANNs (without being put in another system/organization) lack operational structure.

Good survey and discussion of areas where DL fails and emphasis of the lack of transfer of learning, i.e. that the networks are not general intelligence and don't "understand" the concepts (the "overattribution" for DeepMind's Atari-player discovery of "tunnels", see p.9)

---

* However I don't like the pretentiousness in some parts of the article while discussing trivialities and proposing alternatives with 15+ years(?) delay with a pinch of academic glamour or so.

E.g. unsupervised learning (not that common boring classification of fixed images) and self-organization, incremental complexity/"self-improvement" - "Seed AI"; hierarchical operational structure, "symbol grounding" - emergence of generalizaions/"symbols", "abstract thought" from the sensory processing; different levels of abstraction - including "symbolic"; causality understanding (prediction, simulation of "virtual universes"); general/universal game playing; application of general educational tests/measures... (Since AGI is about that; the term "human level (general) (artificial) intelligence" was used in the past) etc. (Not just "pattern matching" of synthetic static tests.)

The above is what AI was always supposed to be about - AGI, - at least as some talented teenagers and others realized and shouted it to the world in the early 2000s and dismissed the poisoned term "AI". Everything was called "AI" back then - somewhat similar today, AI is ubiquitous, yet not general and lacking a personal wholeness.

These suggestions and conclusions would be informative for hard-core AI-er, though (programmers-mathematicians type), it seems the "general"-... part has still a way to go as a concept for the "mainstream" developers community with its "Narrow AI" attitudes**.

...

** Narrow AI - another forgotten term, which on second thought is still actual. Current DL is in fact "narrow AI", each network is trained for a specific class of problems ("classification") and as well explained in the paper can't generalize concepts and transfer the knowledge to different domains.

*** I "don't like" my own pretentiousness, too, but I consider it funny and ironic, rather than serious like in the paper. :P

**** Thanks to Preslav Nakov for sharing the link!

...

Compare the educational test proposals with one of the first articles in this blog, a decade ago:

Wednesday, November 14, 2007
Faults in Turing Test and Lovelace Test. Introduction of Educational Test.
https://artificial-mind.blogspot.bg/2007/11/faults-in-turing-test-and-lovelace-test.html

I didn't explicitly defined the exact kinds of tests, because they were already given in details in the appropriate textbooks about the set of the respective expected skills and knowledge for the respective age or educational level.

...

The article reminds me of the series of articles "What's wrong with Natural language processing?", starting from the year 2009:

https://artificial-mind.blogspot.bg/search?q=what%27s+wrong+with

(...)

Vicarious' demo video summarizing ANN reinforcement learning faults, and their Schema Networks:

Read More

NLTK's Swadesh List in the Bulgarian-Macedonian part | Списък на Суадеш

While browsing the Swadesh list from the NLTK corpus, especially the Bulgarian and Macedonian*  columns.

The Swadesh list is a corpus from comparative/historical/developmental linguistics, which is trying to map how languages evolved by tracking the most stable subset of words. It's also suggestive in the field of language acquisition/child language/developmental psychology/evolutionary psychology, because one can imagine which words would appear first in the vocabulary of a primitive human society and may reach to the same or similar basic concepts as the real ones.*

For the record, I've "discovered" such sort of a list before discovering Swadesh one, inspired by developmental psychology, while trying to imagine and write down a short set of words/concepts which would appear first and in what sequence. I wanted to generalize on them - on the complexity and specifics of these basic concepts, why and how they may appear. For example, the eyes of the mother are among the first "objects" that a child sees. Soon after the child sees the moon and the sun (in the sunset and the dawn). They are all circular, the eyes are spherical... That's answering the question "who invented the wheel"... It was... in front of humans' eyes forever.

The "wheel", in the transportation domain, was rather constructed or built after the tools got good enough, the groups of people grew enough and/also/therefore allowing roads to be built - both by cleaning out forests or utilizing areas which were dry and flat.

---

Bare in mind that in general Bulgarian linguistics deny that Macedonian is an independent language, it was started to be forcefully and violently diverted in the Yugoslavian period and afterwards. Of course there were difference which have grown, but if people talk in their local dialects in Bulgarian, there are differences between Thrace (where I live) and all other regions such as "Shopskiya Kray", Northern-West, Northern-East, in different villages. There's one prominent dialect in Rhodopes/Smolyan which is almost impossible to decode.

Bulgarians and macedonians don't need translators in order to communicate. Macedonian sounds like a dialect, sometimes funny, I guess it sounds the same for the other side.**

The similarities are most apparent and harder to deny if you know the grammar which is harder to change forcefully by the political authorities (than replacing or adding a few letters in the alphabet, adding lots of foreignisms). For example, among the Slavic languages, it's only Bulgarian and Macedonian (?) which have determiners (as "the", but it's in the end of the word) and are analytic, there are no cases, but prepositions - as in German and Latin languages.

...

Bulgarian Swadesh list in NLTK

I don't know who's responsible for the translations and making them official.

However, IMO:

1. Где - as of now it's a kind of archaism for къде . 

  "Онуй" for "that" is a dialect? and funny form of онова   .
It's used in the expressive phrase "туй-онуй" and is funny because "уй" sounds like "хуй". That word is the same as the one in the famous greeting in Russian "Пошол на хуй". :)
   
2. "Бастун" is given for stick, however this is a foreignism and a specific instance/application of the general term "пръчка" ("прачка" in Maced.), "палка" is also used for some specific "sticks" ("palka" is given for other Slavic languages). Edit+: "шосе"  is also strange instead of път.

3. For other words there are also many translation.

баща/татко  (in Macedonian - татко, I don't know what's the frequency there or how they've decided. 

4. 'To swell" in Bulgarian is actively used in many variations which match the roots in other Slavic languages as given in the list:

"подувам се" is given as a translation, but it's also:

1. подпухвам  (пухнуць и др.)
2. набъбвам  (набабрува, мак.)
3. отичам ( otékat, oteći и др.)
4. бухвам (набухати, беларуски?)

4. "Овошка" for "fruit" is another funny item, instead of the more common and ordinary word "плод".
"Овошка" is appropriate for a "fruit tree", short for "овощно дърво" such as an apple tree etc.

Etc., that's what I spotted at a first glance.

I think there should be many words for each entry and more structural data.


How to use it? Install NLTK:

python -m pip install nltk

python
import nltk
nltk.download()

Find the corpus, download it. Then:

from nltk.corpora import swadesh as sw

sw.entries()

Here they show how to get translations between the language pairs:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/23479912/how-to-translate-words-in-ntlk-swadesh-corpus-regardless-of-case-python

---

* For instance, I think that "mama" is produced by the first random sound-producing attempts of the baby, "ma" is maybe the simplest syllable, "mama" is more reliable than "ma", because it's repeated (suggests it's a pattern) and yet two repetitons are enough. The baby called their mother "mama".

http://artificial-mind.blogspot.bg/2010/04/learned-or-innate-nature-or-nurture.html


----

**E.g. the Macedonian word for "boyfrend" is "дечко", which in Bulgarian means a little boy or an infantile adolescent/teenager boy, somebody acting inappropriately as a younger child.

"Барам" in Macedonian means "to search" in the search engines, while in Bulgarian it's an expressive word, a stem/root for "to touch" as:

- Обарам/обарвам, набарам/набарвам, прибара/прибарвам, да се барна

However it actually has an old/deducible meaning of "search" by a gradual explorative touching.

"Обарвам" can be applied for "to search (somebody)", because it involves touching, but it's also to erotically touch somebody.

...

Extending the line, there are a lot of funny false-cognates in the Bulgarian-Serbian relation.

"Сине" in Serbian is an address to a "daughter", while in Bulgarian it is an address to a... "son". (However there are Bulgarian dialects where "син" means "daughter", too).

Read More

On the "Passing of the Turing Test" and the related Emotional and Social-Ranking-Authorities nonsenses

Regarding the recent news and the wrong tone, interpretation, focus:

http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/turing-test-reading-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-warwick.html
http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/A-Computer-Has-Reportedly-Passed-The-Turing-Test-5537703.php
http://www.forbes.com/2009/06/18/turing-test-reading-opinions-contributors-artificial-intelligence-09-warwick.html
http://longbets.org/1/  (notice the "emotions" and how they talk about them as something "mystical", while they are the dumbest the most obvious and not mystical)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10884839/Computer-passes-Turing-Test-for-the-first-time-after-convincing-users-it-is-human.html


See  a commentary of mine  (in the context of AGI list) or below:
See Also Ben Goertzel's comments in H+: http://hplusmagazine.com/2014/06/09/what-does-chatbot-eugene-goostmans-success-on-the-turing-test-mean/


Published also in the AGIRI list:

Notes, 14.1.2025: "impersonated" should be "personal" in many uses, however sometimes the original word applies as well, suggesting that the "personal" part is faked.

... Todor Arnaudov's comment on the reported "passing" of the Turing test
Turing test is superficial, based on wrong "social" settings, and somewhat a "lottery".

It's rather "political" than epistemological/gnoseological/cognitive and has wrong hyporcitic goals to fool somebody and to seek for acknowledgment or mercy from an impersonated authority, having some social ranking and perhaps physical power that is higher, and to whom is given the right to decide whether the "candidate" is "elligible" to be given a particular "order/medal/title", that is - particular political rights, social ranking, social status.
This is societal nonsense, a reflection of what most people care about - social ranking, social ranking and at last - social ranking. Well, also about "emotions" -  another among the structurally dumbest things, which is present in all kinds of living beings all the time, and even in the youngest ones, and is expressed in a few bits, thus it is the most platitudinous/banal and obvious.
That includes the high-ranked scholars who perhaps don't have a clue about the analysis above, but as high-ranked individuals usually are, firstly, inclined towards social hierarchy nonsenses, and later on - additionally trained, as ones who are at the high ranks - they use to fight to keep the status quo which is in their favour.

The above holds for humans vs AGI in general. The humans, even the dumbest ones, put their head under the common hat of "humans" or "human race", and they have to declare something. "Humans are creative" or "intelligent" - even though that they as individuals are not, and are banal and mediocre like the "emotions", which are obvious, a solved problem in any well written literary work, dramatic piece, movie script etc.

In two words: Political bullshits, sophistry and mass-deluding nonsenses.

Even without deeper analysis, the verbs in the gushy articles regarding the Turing test are silly by themselves:

*  "convincing judges":  what is it, rhetorics? a trial? Or sophistry, lie, delusion?*  "fooling users that it was a human"  - lying, delusion

Indeed, that phenomenon is a reflection of the sick values of society. In the concept of "social intelligence", the hypocrisy, the ability to delude, to manipulate, to lie and to exploit others is of high value, and the fact that the society pretends that it "doesn't like hypocrisy", that "liying is wrong" is a part of the sick hypocritical nature of humans, especially the ones who are higher in the hierarchy.

(And humans believe they are higher than animals, machines etc., thus they have "their rights to decide" - instead of objective and obvious measures which do not require impersonated judges.)


True AGI is obvious

That is what has to be achieved - results that are obvious. Not ones that requre a "qualified" "judge" and it should be so from the beginning.

It's trivial to recognize a machine if it really is Versatile Limitless Self-Improver/AGI, and it doesn't lie and is not artificially slowed down and if it is sincere, self-aware [knows about itself, trully - a system that pretends that is was 13-year old boy, 15-year old... dog etc. is not self-aware, unless if it knew that it was pretending and was playing].

Also if it's too slow, too smart, too quick, too deep etc. it will be "different", compared to a human.

I myself am working on a machine that is to FAIL this silly test without taking it.
I guess I will fail it myself as a "non-human" - depends on... the randomness of the jury and how convinced they were of the possibility that a human who would compose such long and complex sentences, if she wished, would be selected to participate in such a test. 

The exact level of intelligence (compared to particular person/s, age, education, social group etc.) in fine-grained terms and fine-grained measures in each particular domain, and in all combined should be rather obvious from the performance of the system without any artificial settings, as mentioned in 0.1.1.266 and later - everything is "a test of intelligence"  should be obvious directly, especially as "intelligence" is a vague term "without concensus on it", aggregating all kinds of perception, prediction, planning, decision making, search, goal-seeking behavior, reinforcement learning capabilities, generalization and specification, increase of the resolution of perception and causation etc. etc.

A test is needed when it is not obvious, when it's somewhat brittle, unknown, BUT some authority has to "approve" it, to "allow it", a pretentious pedantry like the texts in the patents or the following joke:

We, the jury, declare, that the applicant #124353485943, after passing the Turing test with 33.467%, is the first artificial intelligence! Now according to the deputy of ministers of the Royal society of scientific council of the international organization of ABCD, that has leading scholars from the top universities and research groups in the field, we allow that this machine can be called "artificial intelligence" and we proclaim to call this date the birth od the true artificial intelligence. Amen!
By the way, that reminds me of the "birth" of the AI, as it was solemnly proclaimed to be the Dartmouth conference in 1956 - because some high ranked individuals from high-ranked Universities gathered and decided "this is the new science".


See:
See 0.1.1.203: "Man and Thinking Machine (...) " T.A.,  http://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html#203 (2001, Bg)

See 0.1.1.266: "Faults in Turing Test and Lovelace Test ..." T.A http://razumir.twenkid.com/kakvomu_notes.html#266   - "http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/search?q=Lovelace (2007, En)

Regarding the sick,and ill defined concept of the society for "intelligence"
I suggest my latest major super multi-inter disciplinary sociological-philosophical-artistic-literary-satirical-many others-and-some specifically about AGI-and consciousness- work "What a man needs? Part I - Nice guys finish last!", from the first issue of the new e-zine called Razumir (however in this issue - in Bulgarian):    http://razumir.twenkid.com/

It's a complete book of several hundred pages, has many independent and interacting "processes" and many threads of thought. One of the threads that is related to the Turing test besides that superficial social-ranking business is another one from that yard - the subordination and the obedience to impersonated beings are seen by society (the higher ranked and the slaves) as "intelligence". 

That's one major reason why humans believe that dogs are "intelligent" (where more appropriate words are also  obedient to the master, willing to subordinate/please, willing to seek for approval for their actions, dependent on the master, slavish...). "Intelligence" here is a hypocritical term, similar to the hyporcitical pretended prohibition of lying as a "sin" or "immoral", where the higher in society a person grows, the more he lies/deludes/manipulates/is hypocritic.

Humans use to hate or ignore the cognitively more intelligent ones - except if the latter had clearly higher social ranking, were your firends/somehow you identify and take his positive qualities as your own.

The higher ranked ones are "smarter" because of their ranking - they are "qualified". The clueless have nothing but to cite the "qualified", since the former cannot discriminate by their own thinking the nonsense and adopt the authority.

Dogs are complimented as intelligent only because they are servants and are actually dumb enough. Here goes also humans' intrinsic love of slavery - fixated in the culture of thinking machines from the beginning - Chapek's robots and Asimov's positronic slaves with their naive inborn "morality" created to please slave-owners.

According to society (and the not very cognitively/epistemologically intelligent ones), your master (or God, superior, boss) should decide even about your intrinsic qualities - because you yourself can't know - most people do not know. Thus everything is converted into "social ranking" and "rights", the only intelligible or acceptable measures for the majority of people. A monkey/primate thing...

And there we are back to the Turing test -  only a glorious jury, ellected by he Royal Committee of the Lord of Old-Willinshere North Dillignshane, Knight of the Lord of the... Bullshit - should decide whether a machine "has intelligence", because it passes Turing test - the value of which is approved because "Turing was one of the pioneers of the new field, contributor of.. amazing, extraordinary.":

- missing that that's the first test, one of the pioneers... - Turing himself may have denied it if he could live longer; that was what first came to his mind, he didn't have time to elaborate it, the noble society where he lived took it away

- the test is perhaps biased by the society where he lived with its particular manner of social ranking relations/academic "approval" style

- missing the nonsenses of it (which come out naked if one understands it)

The fixation of the first inarticulate and naive test as a standard, by the way, is another illustration of the "authority-obeying-citation" sickness in society, including the speculative sciences - philosophy was in that role some time ago.

Talking and exaggerating bombast nonsenses, without understanding that they are superficial or confused and avoiding questioning them, because "they were obvious"; actually - because they were approved by the unquestionable authority.
In sensory-motor generalization terms that is - lacking the facculty of judgement - as my "brother in mind" and his predecessor called the capability to connect abstract and concrete (regarding the terms of the translators in English).

That nonsense has deeply poisened the world - Europe was in the darkness of partial or complete mental retardation and madness for some 1000-2000 years due to such blind wrong undoubted "truths" coming from power-seeking "socially intelligent" social-hierarchy-climbing religious ideologists and rulers, whose concepts of "intelligence" was "social intelligence", master-slave relations; that is: political, social-hierarchy-related and "emotional", instead of epistemological and cognitive - "rational", of the Reason, related to "the faculty of judgment", "Objective" (in terms of as translated in English in the works of Kant and Schopenhauer).

* Someone may suggest "ethical" among "political" in the last sentence - not really, because the cognitive intelligence includes also ethics. Epistemological philosophy in its best is often  connected to Pantheism or is Atheistic, in the sense that "Theistic" religious, the monotheistic, are related to some unquestionable impersonated ruler and the slave should obey the master and has no right to ask questions - or he will be punished by "God" - the ones who usurped the authority, the power, the rights.

My philosophical brother of mind Arthur Schopenhauer has elaborated on this topic before myself, Nietsche has written on that as well.

Ethics as well can be primitive and superficial or deep and elaborate. Simple "emotions" and social-ranking relations of subordination because somebody owns a higher position - with no questions why it has a higher position and should  he -  require less sophisticated cognition than the critical version. Recognition of the ranking is enough - such as a crown of a king, different clothes, different colours, bigger size; backed up with some sort of application of force at a given point in time - punishment and reward.

Dogs and the dumbest people are clever enough to "understand" such kind of "ethics", while the individuals with the highest cognitive/epistemological intelligence often have "low" intelligence in this vicious and corrupted sense - even though they clearly demonstrate that the nonsense of society is far more clear to their minds, they can predict behavior and they know why things are as they are and thoroughly understand the society and humans. However they deny to obey, which is the major dog-like way to express "intelligence" in such silly ethical (political) systems.

=== Todor "Tosh" Arnaudov ===

.... Author of the world's first University courses in AGI  (2010, 2011): http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2010/04/universal-artificial-intelligence.html

... Todor Arnaudov's Researchers Blog: http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com

Read More

Versatile Self Improvement - VSI - VI - VLSI - VLI | ВСИ - Всестранен Самоусъвършенстващ ВсИчко | Terminology | Universal Self-Improver - USI

I'm adding another term to my AGI dictionary, following the:

Self Improving General Ingelligence - SIGI which was used as a title of the mini-conferene last year.

Versatile Self-Improver - VSI - Universal Self Improver (USI)

A thinking machine/artificial mind that has all capabilities and characteristics of a universal genius (all kinds of cognitive activities)

Other Variants: (Update, 13/2/2013)

Versatile Self-Improvement - The process of development of the VSI entity.

Versatile Limitless Self-Improvement (VLSI) - More powerful VSI.

Versatile Convergent [Limitless] Self-Improvement (VCLSI) - Emphasizes another aspect of the system.

It of course includes/implies also the externalized part of the improvement, and a shorter variant is just:

Versatile Improver and Versatile Improvement, respectively

Versatile Limitless Improver and Versatile Limitless Improvement.

Български: Всестранно Неограничено Самоусъвършенстване, Всестранно Усъвършенстване, Всестранно Развитие, Всестранно развиване на всичко ... Универсален изкуствен разум

In brief - although AGI - "[artificial] general intelligence" is better than the whore-term "AI"*, it still needs clarification, as mentioned in a recent article. "General" is also ambiguous, meaninig both "universal" and "non-specific".

Thinking machines as I envision them are both universal and specific, as an ingenious human should be capable to deal both with the tiniest and most specific technical detail, and with the most general matter, compared to average humans, and the optimal genius should do in all possible domains, not only in "general" in the sense of "vague".

The new term avoids also "intelligence" for several reasons, such as the ridiculous nonsense that I've mentioned again lately, in which many AI-ers and AGI-ers believe: "yet nobody knows what intelligence is" and "there's no consensus about what intelligence is".

Not that the latter is not true, some scholars or laypeople mean only "reasoning", "decision making" or boring shallow boolean logic - because that's what they can understand, and "art is something different, about emotions, blah-blah!"; others include creativity and art, and wonder how could the others put creativity in a different domain, since it's obviously essentially all the same.

Those things are "general" for an observer who has universal/"general" enough capabilities so that he can understand the common among all apparently different domains. However, in a situation of domain-blind* evaluators "versatile" is somewhat more appropriate word, because these activities which in a versatile mind are internally following the same laws and are just relabeled, look to domain-blind observers as radically different, "radically novel" to each other, or "magical" - Magical Self Imrpover. :)

The meaning of versatile is also more clear, unlike the polysemy of "general", and "versatile" means both general-purpose and specific, when a domain is specified.

As I suggested in a recent post (I will unveil in a later work), almost none of humans possesses versatile intelligence/truly general intelligence, humans have only a subset of it, limited by severe thresholds.

Improver/Improvement underlines the developmental aspect and that the potential for improvement matters**, not the actual state of knowledge or skills at the moment of evaluation.


* "Artificial" is a redundant word
** Correlated with the differential of the progress
*** Universal AI, as defined by M. Hutter, or the Schmidhuber's Goedel Machine are related concepts, but the optimality and rewards are too vague concepts if forced to appliy to versatile environments - see also a recent article: Universal Artificial Intelligence - Matches of Todor Arnaudov's teenage works from 2001-2004 to later (2005-2006-2007) related more popular works by Marcus Hutter and Shane Legg (...) a new Challenge/Extension of the reasons for Herbert Simon's "Bounded Rationality" (Satisficing)

A VLSI doesn't have to be optimal compared to all other possible agents in specific environments, in order to be qualified as VLSI, it should be better if applied to versatile environment and should be strictly or virtually limitless/unbounded (or just to self-improve) in its development and given particular environmental resources for development.

Particular data/environment/time range have developmental "juice" - when the juice is over, there's no more stuff to learn or clues to get.


Думи: Изкуствен интелект, термини, мислещи машини, разумни машини, интелигентни, изкуствен разум, самоусъвършенстване, развитие, психологоия на развитието, детска психология, машината на Гьодел, AIXI, Маркус Хутер, Юрген Шмидхубер, оптимален, решавач, задачи, проблеми, съвършенство, прогрес, неограничен, безграничен,

Read More

ДЗБЕ и Юнашкото наречие: Интервюта с Тодор Арнаудов и публикации в пресата 2003 г. и 2005 г. -- DZBE and the Yunashki Dialect - Articles, and Interviews with Todor Arnaudov in Newspapers and Magazines in 2003 and 2005

Прочетете няколко интервюта с мен/материали за ДЗБЕ и Юнашкото наречие, излезли в пресата между 2003-2005 г. - част от приноса ми/дейността ми в областта на социолингвистиката, стилистиката, литературата, българския език в първите години на 21-ви век:

http://research.twenkid.com/wp/interview_bg/ 

(Ох, каква прическа имах през 2005 г. :D)

Както знаете, преди месец обявих възстановяване на ДЗБЕ, под името ДРУБЕ - Дружество за Развитие и Усъвършенстване на Българския Език.

 http://artificial-mind.blogspot.com/2012/02/2-drube-society-for-development-and.html

Постепенно ще препубликувам материалите от предишната "епоха", ще добавя нови за развитието през годините, и ще се опитам да намеря старите ми, и нови съмишленици.

(Работите от тогава са достъпни и сега, стига някой да е любопитен ще ги намери с две кликания, но ще направя нов по-свеж сайт, и вероятно ще ги коментирам от гледна точка на случилото се през изминалите... за някои от статиите - 9-10-11 години...)


Думи: ДЗБЕ, ДУБЕ, ДРУБЕ, Дружество за защита на българския език, усъвършенстване, развитие, лингвистика, езикознание, социолингвистика, статии, вестници, списания, преса, медии, новини

Read More