From nessus@free.fr Sat Dec 07 02:57:06 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 7 Dec 2002 10:57:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 40171 invoked from network); 7 Dec 2002 10:57:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m13.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Dec 2002 10:57:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Dec 2002 10:57:05 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18Kcdt-0005Ux-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:57:05 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kcdk-0005Uc-00; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:56:56 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:56:55 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-out-2.wanadoo.fr ([193.252.19.254] helo=mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18Kcdf-0005SC-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 07 Dec 2002 02:56:51 -0800 Received: from mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (193.252.19.61) by mel-rto2.wanadoo.fr (6.7.010) id 3DEF189A0016DEE4 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:56:19 +0100 Received: from tanj (193.248.155.155) by mel-rta7.wanadoo.fr (6.7.010) id 3DEDFF89001ADFA0 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:56:19 +0100 Message-ID: <002a01c29ddf$478ee490$9b9bf8c1@tanj> To: References: Subject: [lojban] Re: cmegadri valfendi preti Date: Sat, 7 Dec 2002 11:55:26 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 X-archive-position: 3211 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: nessus@free.fr Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "Lionel Vidal" Reply-To: nessus@free.fr X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=47678341 X-Yahoo-Profile: cmacinf And Rosta: > I'm not sure that you understood the point I was making. I was claiming > that the morphological rules are ALREADY too complex to be used in > real time. It is therefore irrelevant that making the rules even more > complex will make life even harder for the listener struggling to parse > in real time. Ok, I indeed misunderstood you, but I still disagree: I don't think the algorithm is that complex, and taking account the required breathing rightly emphasized by Robin, my guess is that one could parse in real time most common utterances even with non clue at all on the meaning. I agree with lojbab that only some fu'ivla could pose problems. > As you know, some natural languages do have phonological clues to > word-boundaries, but on the whole disambiguation is accomplished > pragmatically. So in practise, for actual comprehension, the > segmentation algorithm is not important. Of course I agree that most of the time for a language I am fluent enough in, the pragmatic context is enough, because as you said, I know more or less what is likely to be said. But this could highly depend on the structural intrinsic possibilities of the language and on the specific context of the communication instance: - some languages, like mongolian, have a very high tendency to create at will new words, which may have a life restricted to the current uttterance, but which nonetheless are pretty much rightly understood by the audience (think of real-time created lujvo!). Around 30% of the words used by poets are not to be found in dictionaries. And, yes, not surprisingly, mongolian does have strong phonological restrictions on words that help the parsing. Very lojbanic in a sense :-) - in some contexts, like when declaiming poetry, your pragmatic guess is of non help. Think of latin poetry, which was mainly a poetry to be said (maybe I should say to be sung): one of the appreciated device of the poets was to lure you in false parsing for a while and then to suddenly enlight you with a strinking sound-syntaxic-semantic combination. I experienced myself some of this, while being a student, in a latin course when we tried to revive this tradition. (of course, a native Latin would have certainly laughed at some of our childish misunderstanding, but would have still valued some others). -- Lionel