From bpfk-list+bncCN673cmqFBDipsnlBBoEfJB2Rw@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 10 16:59:45 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P55nq-0004xP-E1; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:59:45 -0700 Received: by gxk9 with SMTP id 9sf2694145gxk.16 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:59:36 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:received:x-vr-score :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=W0sDKIaYxWL39El2DMTX8e7cCUnsynlKPdBmWOu93FY=; b=PUa86WvV+b1opMPr+/lWGzDto+Gq7u2KBlE9VoujlFBs3ILhEiRWDNoHZXVi96F8U9 VpLDv9c9004kMGXHN2/idi+czgJoApdWsLW3mxHIM9FhIh1cbq5Q9ESiHWvCjxboAvwz aln7PoYe4nY+WLRjIy9w5wfKR7KKWNO+T+cJM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=lQAye11WQku7ezTXBqOQAECmGt2KFzGMBAlzZxDIU/kpwavr03yZi3qVb59s6yeMiS q2jzU0z1iehQSSN/shy4YYdRk12t/6e37B5bP7brvKoTkVr68zqqXT1/z2Hvw+PiPTEd /Zy9c45wPmhiwZGLmFBbL5BmW4VcUkPMJtJ9Q= Received: by 10.101.175.14 with SMTP id c14mr53724anp.59.1286755170346; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.139.20 with SMTP id m20ls342872and.6.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.205.16 with SMTP id c16mr1471515ang.55.1286755170037; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.205.16 with SMTP id c16mr1471513ang.55.1286755170010; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:59:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net (eastrmmtao104.cox.net [68.230.240.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n12si4047186ana.7.2010.10.10.16.59.29; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 16:59:29 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.46 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.46; Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20101010235929.YOEA16482.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:59:29 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id HBzU1f00R3Xcbvq02BzUSn; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 19:59:29 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Of5FRk7D4fcJlrWbzxPvWNsT1UhKEYt7m7ky24PLP4c= c=1 sm=1 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=EyJptL4CFM0-6aFuCCcA:9 a=fJmxYoTMc5385sfWXKsA:7 a=4T2Xd73cb5JPFwYzCEFXm-qvQWMA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=6jbbv2qd7wN-9H7m:21 a=CQ0sJjFKC5vVN_uu:21 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 20:01:20 -0400 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work References: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> <4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org> <4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org> <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.46 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: > On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Robert LeChevalier w= rote: >=20 >>Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: >> >>>I see the disadvantages (you lose the information that a text has a >>>speaker which is referred to as "mi" in the text and an audience which >>>is referred to as "do" in the text), but I still can't see the >>>advantages. What are the advantages of treating the whole conversation >>>as one text? >> >>Syntactically, only that it takes one pass through the parser rather than >>many. >=20 >=20 > Except when the parse of the full thing fails, in which case you still > have to try each piece again to see if the individual pieces parse, > right? Or are you saying that when the individual pieces parse but the > concatenation fails, the conversation as a whole fails? Back then, the concept was that if the parse fails, the text was bad=20 Lojban, period. Stop there. There was no error analysis. If I fed the=20 entire conversation to the parser as a text, and it did not have the=20 ".i" with each new speaker, it failed, and therefore was ungrammatical. At the same time we recognized that the parser was imperfect and the=20 YACC grammar did not address all of the metalinguistic rules. We thought we had a superior grammar merely by allowing a much larger=20 set of grammatical pieces of less than bridi length to be valid Lojban,=20 recognizing that human beings would likely tend to speak less than=20 perfect Lojban and less than complete sentences. > Do you no longer agree with what you taught in your lessons? The lessons didn't really address the issue. CLL didn't really address=20 the issue. The "machine language" and the "human language" are not necessarily the=20 same. The question of "what is a text?" was always considered to be a=20 "machine language" question and hence not something we "taught". You can legitimately say that our examples did not generally include a=20 leading ".i", and hence taught-by-example that a leading ".i" was not=20 important. If I were conversing with a computer, I would expect that the computer=20 would need the separators. >>Pragmatically, while "mi" and "do" change their meanings with time (as do >>ri, ra, di'u etc), most referents hold their value regardless of time, >>speaker, etc. Any semantic analysis has to treat them as a single text. >> Otherwise, somewhat-ambiguous semantics become unintelligible semantics. >=20 > Of course any semantic analysis needs to take context into account, > and the preceding text is most definitely part of the context of a > given text. >=20 > I'm still not seeing the advantage of treating a conversation > syntactically as a single text. It doesn't always work, so is your > rule: "if you can blend everything into one text, do it, otherwise > treat each part as a separate text"? Or what? My rule, to the extent that I had one, has always been to treat a=20 conversation syntactically as a single text, and if it didn't work,=20 insert .i. at the start of each turn until it did work. I didn't really=20 "teach" this, because it wasn't something that was part of the machine=20 grammar (which doesn't even recognize the possibility of multiple=20 speakers or multiple texts). I never really considered one person finishing another person's sentence=20 to be "part of the language", but can accept that people might want a=20 way to do so. lojbab --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.