From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDv2c3lBBoEHwPY0Q@googlegroups.com Mon Oct 11 13:01:08 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5OYO-0001AR-Eh; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:01:07 -0700 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20sf122291wye.16 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:54 -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=2MtWGybMIMKgXgXkcjxhCOkGGeZAqqgzvDGmsoZlT3s=; b=0Fu4amignIUAahkJGWwLfoZQJg3eHSxtGDgMEDG8FdhgFkdsE9fx0dzViUG8ycqvS7 OVxJVlIvzN/cSC9rwFUx/PjO8s/uDwuwzrqcQFUR1+D06RniccovM/gIrxxvKkwjCINk mPXJLnRdQMbMLe4kRH+N2rZJF14O1tRkHIrkA= 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=D/NkUFnuhiLf5fie84hr5K4UI8BNKbTzMz6CgH6t0cZJ4iSj7u7hizfcexhNx8a3rv Fpy04rGxIvfWseFmM9WLg72uTt51bJQfXyMHbQFlA3T45/9msnA7ayGgKiAQ4z/WfN0w W15G+ONwssI0kiJW4cmafiDLarAvuCEkIbu+k= Received: by 10.216.144.97 with SMTP id m75mr946473wej.17.1286827247858; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.39.10 with SMTP id d10ls1216477wbe.2.p; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.135.79 with SMTP id m15mr269918wbt.7.1286827246871; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.135.79 with SMTP id m15mr269917wbt.7.1286827246840; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f44.google.com (mail-ww0-f44.google.com [74.125.82.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id w33si1404459wbd.6.2010.10.11.13.00.45; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.44; Received: by wwj40 with SMTP id 40so4413030wwj.25 for ; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.137.15 with SMTP id u15mr6119047wbt.129.1286827245511; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Mon, 11 Oct 2010 13:00:45 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CB3576C.2000009@lojban.org> References: <4CB1F3EA.5000608@lojban.org> <4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org> <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> <4CB3576C.2000009@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:00:45 -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 74.125.82.44 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 Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert LeChevalier wro= te: > > You are taking the fact that they do not parse as evidence that they are > =A0multiple texts. =A0But formally, if it doesn't parse, it is simply inc= orrect, > even if pieces of it are correct separately. Why do you think all our learning materials are offering incorrect Lojban as examples? > =A0The human inputter has to do a break-up, according to > informal rules. A computer can also be programmed to do that, possibly using statistical methods, but that's neither here nor there. Yes, the formal grammar needs to be fed the chunk to be tested for correctness. >=A0One such informal rule is that a new speaker is a new text. Excellent. > =A0But that is an informal rule of pragmatics, and not part of the defini= tion > of Lojban. =A0The proposals, I think, are proposals to override the infor= mal > considerations of pragmatics. =A0I don't know if this is a good idea unle= ss we > codify the rules of Lojban pragmatics. =A0But I'm willing to consider the > possibility. So after all the brouhaha, we are in agreement after all. Do you see now why I said that the proposed new word could not be in any of the regular selma'o? The formal grammar will never get to see the new word, it is only useful to the human (or computer) who will be deciding what chunk to feed to the parser, but it has to be invisible to the parser itself. 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.