From bpfk-list+bncCN673cmqFBCxgNLlBBoEYv-KSQ@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 12 08:35:32 2010 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5gsv-00006z-NX; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:35:32 -0700 Received: by gwj19 with SMTP id 19sf1707821gwj.16 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:35:19 -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=276dxofhg7D1wqpCPk/RaO7UJNG1Vy73Bn+KDHG77BY=; b=2hvA/niN4Qw3yfuT/SE6zLGgj7Yo3Pb7s4ko9/vUgjpC3peu05QRIGZXorQj3UcD69 k0KeLw+SYs9pjrT61nOB3JKhzI/oSDNu7JQG53tg91LXEXIJyqm4LE1GcAD1CuNFga6I xTnUOG0Ricgu0vRlcBn9IZTv+VgCjUeJdWRfM= 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=APDB3FpNMfBUVxMnOyu+nbcVYhQl0RZWMloRB2FIVHRlBUbvKuLMHmY+3IJG/JzCVt 7gl+tv5gsJnahCk6Afo2SZ6/Q4QrP5+DtHp5A1FfW4IWG0bIM/g5VD/jjm/36c1avs4G 12D/KXj1j3CUganiv+pW+g89SmGkVFZYUMYgU= Received: by 10.101.93.3 with SMTP id v3mr135760anl.3.1286897713196; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:35:13 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.208.33 with SMTP id k33ls6412anq.0.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.128.3 with SMTP id a3mr3316875and.1.1286897712787; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.128.3 with SMTP id a3mr3316874and.1.1286897712757; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:35:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao104.cox.net (eastrmmtao104.cox.net [68.230.240.46]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id u5si5696425ana.8.2010.10.12.08.35.12; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 08:35:12 -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 eastrmimpo03.cox.net ([68.1.16.126]) by eastrmmtao104.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20101012153513.QVPD16482.eastrmmtao104.cox.net@eastrmimpo03.cox.net> for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:35:13 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163]) by eastrmimpo03.cox.net with bizsmtp id HrbB1f00W3Xcbvq02rbBfU; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:35:12 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=z6CBhH0tHruS0FbwYG+vLjSarkX/HqbUMpkqCCzoucY= c=1 sm=1 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17 a=8YJikuA2AAAA:8 a=Jf1Fm-puHNrj_0QqeKsA:9 a=q0Cec2HvIVCE1yc9gdv4OtdAlRgA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10 a=dxBpO5_FDU0A:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4CB48045.9050503@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:35:33 -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: <4CB20ADF.6050500@lojban.org> <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> <4CB3576C.2000009@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 Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert LeChevalier w= rote: >=20 >>You are taking the fact that they do not parse as evidence that they are >> multiple texts. But formally, if it doesn't parse, it is simply incorre= ct, >>even if pieces of it are correct separately. >=20 > Why do you think all our learning materials are offering incorrect > Lojban as examples? Because we haven't been thinking about it. >> The human inputter has to do a break-up, according to >>informal rules. >=20 > A computer can also be programmed to do that, possibly using > statistical methods, but that's neither here nor there. Computers don't follow informal rules, only rigidly programmed formal=20 ones (unless one has programmed some kind of learning-behavior) > Yes, the > formal grammar needs to be fed the chunk to be tested for correctness. In point of fact, we realized after CLL had been published, that many of=20 the examples had never been tested with the parser. And most of those=20 were single sentences. And since the parser has never been complete and current, even that=20 doesn't necessarily prove anything. >> One such informal rule is that a new speaker is a new text. >=20 > Excellent. >=20 >> But that is an informal rule of pragmatics, and not part of the definiti= on >>of Lojban. The proposals, I think, are proposals to override the informa= l >>considerations of pragmatics. I don't know if this is a good idea unless= we >>codify the rules of Lojban pragmatics. But I'm willing to consider the >>possibility. >=20 > So after all the brouhaha, we are in agreement after all. I don't think so. > Do you see > now why I said that the proposed new word could not be in any of the > regular selma'o? No. >The formal grammar will never get to see the new word, If we formally codify the informal rules of Lojban pragmatics, then=20 those rules become part of the formal grammar. > 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. As far as I am concerned "the parser" refers to the entire "black box"=20 program that takes input and produces a parse. Any "pre-parser" and=20 indeed if relevant, "lexer" are just pieces of what I consider the=20 "Lojban parser". You seem to be trying to treat different parts of a=20 formal system as different and unrelated systems. This makes little=20 sense to me. 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.