From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRD8-9PlBBoEGpeHKA@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 12 17:32:12 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5pGL-0000w8-3c; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:32:11 -0700 Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20sf521513wye.16 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:32:02 -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=JOUurr6RcED49fUnpiknXHke2OMebKD/Sb+8VTHGJY4=; b=JiuDQskgiXqp35rWy1x2tO7ibUt5OI6GXqCbnxFNw/GlZs3M0fwJZCyNOzgWowQFNU ffAarz9A1AhlYaj8wiM7tlbCHIdH5kiC1phzoX5MzBeR2nBRjGTqGh3KpuBrsn4T6+U5 MCSwVIR5vsLulhI6jhtzyENtuCc1ZQd9SiOdI= 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=hJ2hW4oe0HxvwthWrt+U49HFN3u86g8PTn+kp8vo6z36UKXWk5mW78uHpkAZ2v3x9z 8tNnUOK9cYb1TBKNlVHLHUay1phKfTD91JIF+yNwjVGHaG2UFj4MNCksYjxtAd7nDPya UHATCfOZg7C7vzZR4LJXc9RQ0engrSnvK8pa4= Received: by 10.216.237.83 with SMTP id x61mr999563weq.3.1286929916069; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:56 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.227.131.162 with SMTP id x34ls175366wbs.0.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.207.209 with SMTP id fz17mr346283wbb.27.1286929915082; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.207.209 with SMTP id fz17mr346282wbb.27.1286929915031; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ww0-f45.google.com (mail-ww0-f45.google.com [74.125.82.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id k1si3164981wbc.4.2010.10.12.17.31.53; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.45; Received: by wwa36 with SMTP id 36so4883540wwa.26 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.127.84 with SMTP id f20mr7739613wbs.3.1286929913775; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:31:53 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org> <4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org> <4CB3576C.2000009@lojban.org> <4CB48045.9050503@lojban.org> <4CB4A74F.9040003@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 21:31:53 -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 74.125.82.45 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 Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Jones wrote: > 2010/10/12 Jorge Llamb=EDas >> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert LeChevalier >> wrote: >> >> > Right now, there are no formal rules governing multiple texts and thei= r >> > possible interactions. >> >> >=A0Perhaps there should be, but I am inclined to think >> > we should wait till the BYFY finishes the simpler "single text" proble= m >> > we've been stuck on for years before making the job harder. >> >> Indeed. And we should avoid legislating on things that don't really >> have anything to do with what a grammar is supposed to do. > > Then why did you even bring it up? Bring what up? It was lojbab who suggested that perhaps there should be formal rules governing multiple texts and their possible interactions, not me. I'm not even sure such formal rules could be added without completely breaking the language. Consider this: A: do klama mo B: lo zarci Each of A and B is speaking proper Lojban. Any rule that results in that exchange not counting as proper Lojban, is breaking the language, in my opinion. And any rule that tells you how to separate the single input "do klama mo lo zarci" into the two strings produced by A and B will not be a formal grammar rule. At best it will be based on some kind of heuristics. Or it will need some additional input like voice recognition. I just don't see how you could feed that to a formal parser and have the result of the parse be a conversation. At least not with the type of formal grammars we have for Lojban today. 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.