From bpfk-list+bncCN673cmqFBD2ks3lBBoEviy_VA@googlegroups.com Mon Oct 11 10:29:43 2010 Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5MBv-0007xl-41; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:43 -0700 Received: by gyh3 with SMTP id 3sf181446gyh.16 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:32 -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=/57zaon3cTUg1QGa1gbKDhZBV93Oo2DfYh2ZWUcG018=; b=NgbT/uclH5zN03wNUu1crmGSj7b6nBSKWX+z7QKF1GLhQ5zunvTy45r4PgRnARv1yd XqC/iCdB1IKZpM+x80tPPin+g3r/JjSrXEVdtR+WfV6Owxiq8MnoWCTq6VKmr+lxQ4pO UESm9bIlhqDuc6PZyC/vBNmDAjyCTRJpdPAkA= 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=ngTg9KHZ77ciEdQph5l0LYy8i1YZYuFHMudxPxzYKlSHwUHeH5MV+ZaUSYTXruldR6 ocdNpwcN5py9es3NQZXsJJPSAwcIlOSWZRZuLGwdGKE59/LFjMlXuOHTBPrdRDDo43P+ 3TGL+i3V4GQ4J7+RI8ECWVYCp33MKpzpzO4g0= Received: by 10.150.72.7 with SMTP id u7mr522195yba.38.1286818166518; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:26 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.150.158.14 with SMTP id g14ls1378780ybe.7.p; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.95.129 with SMTP id p1mr1730294yhf.26.1286818165506; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.95.129 with SMTP id p1mr1730293yhf.26.1286818165489; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao107.cox.net (eastrmmtao107.cox.net [68.230.240.59]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id x51si2663426yhc.5.2010.10.11.10.29.25; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 10:29:25 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.59 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.59; Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao107.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20101011172926.REVE21335.eastrmmtao107.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:29:26 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id HVVP1f00M3Xcbvq02VVPcD; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:29:24 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=zpAh8NT9SzMisnlzmt6xnbL/Bv7XoKhaPoxN5FSWxDQ= c=1 sm=1 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=VBxeDFfw24ctcogw-74A:9 a=TuV-tA1qxYuHr4hryo3TSnjnPhoA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=4I1flG1sur8HwrAj:21 a=0uUTSPSGfeCVL0yc:21 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4CB3493A.7010406@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:28:26 -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> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.59 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: >>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. >=20 > So you consider what the formal grammar calls "fragment" to be "less > than perfect Lojban"? In terms of a language definition that does not account for fragments,=20 such would be ungrammatical. We defined the formal grammar to account=20 for many kinds of fragments (though probably not all conceivable ones)=20 thereby making the "imperfect" acceptable and therefore "perfect" in the=20 absolute dichotomy defined by a non-error-correcting parser. > Or are you saying that back then you considered it so, but now you > consider it perfect Lojban? If it parses, then the parser considers it good Lojban. (I'm not sure=20 that my opinion mattered then, much less now). > 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. >=20 > 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". 1. The formalization is about parsing. It says nothing about meaning.=20 Human language, however, is more about meaning than about grammatical=20 correctness. Thus human beings often speak ungrammatically but are=20 still understood. "Perfect" or "true" seem to be inappropriate=20 adjectives for language in that context. 2. The formal grammar is a good part of the basic definition of Lojban,=20 but CLL consists of a lot more than the Appendix containing the formal=20 grammar, and the bulk of the arguments regarding the completeness and=20 accuracy of CLL are not about the formal grammar. If the formal grammar=20 was itself the entirety of the basic definition of Lojban, it would not=20 matter to you or anyone else whether xorlo was adopted, since xorlo did=20 not change the formal grammar. 3. The formalization of the machine grammar has not to my knowledge ever=20 been fully implemented, and the fact that we are having this discussion=20 indicates that the concept of "text" was never formally defined in terms=20 necessary to account for multiple speakers. In the formal grammar,=20 "text" is everything up until a fa'o (which almost no one uses - except=20 apparently in Twitter), and thus it is arbitrary to say that change of=20 speaker ends a text. By the formal language, no fa'o: no end of text.=20 There is no mention of "end of speaker". Of course, in the formal=20 language there is no such thing as "ungrammatical text". It either=20 parses or it is nonsense and not "text". >>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. >=20 > 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. By the formal grammar, if there is no fa'o, there is no new text.=20 Indeed, by the formal grammar, there is no concept of more than one text=20 and after a fa'o, everything else until the end of time is non-Lojban. %^) >>If I were conversing with a computer, I would expect that the computer wo= uld >>need the separators. >=20 > Why? Why wouldn't the computer just parse each speaker's text on its > own?=20 The computer doesn't know what a "speaker" is. It knows what a=20 text-stream is, and that such a text-stream ends with a fa'o and only=20 with a fa'o. Actual implementation is thus erroneous in that it can end=20 other than with a fa'o (i.e with whatever the computer system recognizes=20 as "end-of-text". >>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. >=20 > 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: >=20 > A: do klama ma > B: lo zarci "Formally", to the Lojbanic computer, that is "do klama ma lo zarci".=20 It doesn't know what "A:" and "B:" are. "Formally", to the Lojbanic=20 computer there is no possibility of more than one text. > I hope John Cowan says something, because if he agrees more with you > than with me on this one I will be extremely worried. %^) 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.