From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhDH_tPlBBoEQYvZmg@googlegroups.com Tue Oct 12 17:37:43 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P5pLg-00015g-Ag; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:43 -0700 Received: by gxk6 with SMTP id 6sf1853477gxk.16 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:34 -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; bh=BHr92kbD2xZt8tKG8mNZMHWb910uZpKycAZ/TkJ5LaE=; b=ZD+Nkc0HSfgQrAnwk/XxWHA6cqVIw4b8hH4mh4T2mRvXYaW8u2hjq91YCg3oMo3vm7 PEgsD2uWtTNQnAbM2qEXiXEzYSf7vPuPQvv6U9TBwCluVnHu+xl1zXOmkDhqWN/PO/p+ P5G2+CCxWYSGdWj6fuEVJGyAwokk/l2s78+20= 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; b=mpMPK28BLo9vkjL9MLLaOvVF/Gy2N2uWt5LadH9sL43QgjyuzdgfBTvT/pwowBoWXu 9vC6unQD9nAsGFaGslgL00qD5WlukuZo3tEkENg5PXnoj/rztMdieTfA+c/eVScI5nVH dsAv7D/tc+o827+B/bQr8alPIInFRjhMIpeqk= Received: by 10.90.90.7 with SMTP id n7mr56008agb.35.1286930247882; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:27 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.123.203 with SMTP id q11ls346066ibr.2.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.161.69 with SMTP id q5mr2177858ibx.8.1286930247524; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.161.69 with SMTP id q5mr2177857ibx.8.1286930247465; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f173.google.com (mail-iw0-f173.google.com [209.85.214.173]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id bm7si5424025ibb.2.2010.10.12.17.37.26; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.173; Received: by iwn34 with SMTP id 34so3884500iwn.32 for ; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:26 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.150.73 with SMTP id z9mr2846327icv.348.1286930245351; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 17:37:25 -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 18:37:25 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work From: Jonathan Jones To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.173 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=90e6ba6e8ecc1ffa2d049274cc19 --90e6ba6e8ecc1ffa2d049274cc19 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2010/10/12 Jorge Llamb=EDas > 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 > their > >> > possible interactions. > >> > >> > Perhaps there should be, but I am inclined to think > >> > we should wait till the BYFY finishes the simpler "single text" > problem > >> > 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 > I have an easy fix for that specific example. I believe I've mentioned it before. Preface your speech with {.i}. Then it becomes A: .i do klama ma B: .i lo zarci Amazingly, this rule tells you how to separate the single input ".i do klam= a ma .i lo zarci" into the two strings produced by A and B, isn't based on an= y heuristics or voice recognition, and is already part of the formal grammar! Huzzah! Which is yet another reason why I frown on the practice of /not/ beginning one's speech with one of {.i}, {ni'o}, or {no'i}, and .lojbab. apparently i= s in agreement with me. --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi luk. mi patfu d= o zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=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. --90e6ba6e8ecc1ffa2d049274cc19 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
2010/10/12 Jorge Llamb=EDas &l= t;jjllambias@gmail.com>
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/12 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Right now, there are no formal rules = governing multiple texts and their
>> > possible interactions.
>>
>> >=A0Perhaps there should be, but I am i= nclined to think
>> > we should wait till the BYFY finishes the simpler "singl= e text" problem
>> > we've been stuck on for years before making the job harde= r.
>>
>> Indeed. And we should avoid legislating on things that don't r= eally
>> 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<= br> 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 a= nd 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

I have an easy fix for that specific exa= mple. I believe I've mentioned it before.

Preface your speech wi= th {.i}.

Then it becomes

A: .i do klama ma
B: .i lo zarci<= br>
Amazingly, this rule tells you how to separate the single input ".= i do klama ma .i lo zarci" into the two strings produced by A and B, i= sn't based on any heuristics or voice recognition, and is already part = of the formal grammar! Huzzah!

Which is yet another reason why I frown on the practice of /not/ beginn= ing one's speech with one of {.i}, {ni'o}, or {no'i}, and .lojb= ab. apparently is in agreement with me.

--
mu'= o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi luk= . mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D= )

--
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.
--90e6ba6e8ecc1ffa2d049274cc19--