From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCwuMnlBBoE3AcXCg@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 10 17:37:19 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P56OC-000711-AP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:19 -0700 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf678579wwe.16 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:10 -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:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=FR3LGDuKQb3K2jzRc0G4QGSZs/uk3/qeezT029JRi1c=; b=bVxoiPfB46ZQ9yIiGZfW+75sJ3tr7JWWKuODS3xz5NqrZfShWgWxcKy1nlQgDemaL9 xU4uZwcs0pWfas/ltY6hsW4fOthqRU3VCbA8B1hPE3g9aSA4WXbcgSwfLgdZvBLYmubE Pusr3eE/KqaIP7HpVYP/JOWCl/Iza9wD5chVo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from: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=JX+07HbLGJ3WcJ3jKWHq3OX1QEKo8zsey7Bf8gldlQz5tN5WXpNDjzvC3mbHli96oW 42DkivPFmycS6G7GbLq4hA+DLIWoqyKjtQUyQxiT7dTQUqHAxbr/fdYNc37k+hTGycKg 5I0o7DEQfZuszTAmmQRC6gCGah66k+ZrWr4O0= Received: by 10.216.231.154 with SMTP id l26mr214895weq.9.1286757424025; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:04 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.3.19 with SMTP id 19ls942291wbl.3.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.29.217 with SMTP id r25mr108237wbc.6.1286757423399; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.29.217 with SMTP id r25mr108236wbc.6.1286757423364; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f177.google.com (mail-wy0-f177.google.com [74.125.82.177]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id k1si2118475wbc.4.2010.10.10.17.37.02; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:02 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.177; Received: by wyj26 with SMTP id 26so489373wyj.8 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:37:02 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.135.8 with SMTP id l8mr4937930wbt.224.1286757419403; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:36:59 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> References: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> <4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org> <4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org> <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:36:59 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.177 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com 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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 9:01 PM, Robert LeChevalier wro= te: > > Back then, the concept was that if the parse fails, the text was bad Lojb= an, > period. =A0Stop there. =A0There was no error analysis. That's still the concept today. >=A0If I fed the entire > conversation to the parser as a text, and it did not have the ".i" with e= ach > new speaker, it failed, and therefore was ungrammatical. The difference is that today (or always?) we don't feed an entire conversation to the parser. We only feed an entire text, i.e. usually the production of one speaker. > At the same time we recognized that the parser was imperfect and the YACC > grammar did not address all of the metalinguistic rules. > > We thought we had a superior grammar merely by allowing a much larger set= of > grammatical pieces of less than bridi length to be valid Lojban, recogniz= ing > that human beings would likely tend to speak less than perfect Lojban and > less than complete sentences. So you consider what the formal grammar calls "fragment" to be "less than perfect Lojban"? Or are you saying that back then you considered it so, but now you consider it perfect Lojban? I'm trully amazed that we have such a different understanding about this, I wouldn't have thought this kind of thing was among the things we usually disagree about. I thought it was a given that the formal grammar was the basic definition of Lojban, and that the rest was fluff. You seem to be saying that your intuitive understanding is the important part, and that the formalization is only some approximation which may or may not fully capture the "true Lojban". >> Do you no longer agree with what you taught in your lessons? > > The lessons didn't really address the issue. =A0CLL didn't really address= the > issue. I don't remember if it does explicitly, but it clearly has plenty of examples where conversations are not single parsable texts. > The "machine language" and the "human language" are not necessarily the > same. =A0The question of "what is a text?" was always considered to be a > "machine language" question and hence not something we "taught". We are discussing the formal definition, aren't we? I know you didn't teach what the construct "text" was, but the way you presented conversations clearly showed each speaker producing their own separate "text" construct, not contributing to a single conversational "text" construct. > You can legitimately say that our examples did not generally include a > leading ".i", and hence taught-by-example that a leading ".i" was not > important. Right, but I'm not even concerned with "important". I'm concerned that you think it is somewhat less than correct Lojban for the second speaker to produce a new text. > If I were conversing with a computer, I would expect that the computer wo= uld > need the separators. Why? Why wouldn't the computer just parse each speaker's text on its own? It seems it would generally make life easier for it, if it had one. > I never really considered one person finishing another person's sentence = to > be "part of the language", but can accept that people might want a way to= do > so. This seems like a secondary issue to me now. I'm too amazed by our completely different takes on how to formally interpret something as basic as: A: do klama ma B: lo zarci I hope John Cowan says something, because if he agrees more with you than with me on this one I will be extremely worried. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.