Received: from localhost ([::1]:52723 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TzJgC-0001Oa-Jj; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:17:16 -0800 Received: from mail-vb0-f52.google.com ([209.85.212.52]:56299) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TzJfz-0001O9-LE for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:17:13 -0800 Received: by mail-vb0-f52.google.com with SMTP id fa15so1188752vbb.39 for ; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:16:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=GDlzY7Sthx38aG+nD0clRMcYygiWFzZOzBfUPQ/B89M=; b=0Wmhnt2t32EaZovi01UHN9ocx15/pwhexGXkEz6y5I4fMkTbA+y1FQaP/MnC6GwLWg 0UBliN3SKRhZHJRWHWu4sMkP+TKTSElH3QSnzs0VMFFeT+P9UgXkBezjspd1gmNhxhi9 QMEODbBxbTnbDOL4MHSZSDopSYzoF37ErzXp7JVxbwewm64GUwcQw1C7S4DG8SMhDFog hOq0gh52fbSwsTVfD4dRuLkSpgMbqCfIVchh4/yBZgPV76G1Aynpx2rmJX2UUD0MuOgL /WnMDJmzGzGkDZ+qFOrGG4s8G7vxrxhJYKok82oAeofKERqnRF23L4JSfTnj9PPv1sWo z8EA== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.52.74.227 with SMTP id x3mr9526701vdv.80.1359260217172; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:16:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.165.196 with HTTP; Sat, 26 Jan 2013 20:16:57 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20130124175134.GA14317@mercury.ccil.org> <51017FF7.504@plasmatix.com> <20130124221349.GB20636@mercury.ccil.org> <20130125151703.GB20813@mercury.ccil.org> Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 23:16:57 -0500 Message-ID: From: Ian Johnson To: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / Subject: Re: [jbovlaste] berbere, berberi X-BeenThere: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list Reply-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4962015363046432391==" Errors-To: jbovlaste-bounces@lojban.org --===============4962015363046432391== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071cece66e25b04d43d6e8c --20cf3071cece66e25b04d43d6e8c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Never mind, I missed xorxes' response that answered my question. On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Ian Johnson wrote= : > Though it's a silly example, this also reveals possible problems with > collisions between fu'ivla rafsi and collections of other rafsi: in the > presence of {selseli}, ma veljvo zo selselyli'a .i lu selseli cliva ji lu > se se cliva > > mi'e la latro'a mu'o > > > On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Gleki Arxokuna < > gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Let's imagine that we have a brivla. Let it be {selseli}. >> >> Now imagine that you see a rafsi {selsely-}. Is it a rafsi of {selseli}? >> Or may be there is another brivla, {selsela}? Or may be there is no >> {selsela} but it'll be added later, may be in 50 years making old texts >> with {selsely-} ambiguous. >> >> If we allow brivla that differ in the last vowel only then we should >> delete that proposal of fu'ivla rafsi from CLL. This is not human-friend= ly. >> >> >> >> On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Jorge Llamb=EDas = wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, John Cowan >>> wrote: >>> > Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit: >>> > >>> >> Surely that can't have been the reason. How did you prove that >>> >> decompositions with CCVCy- rafsi were unambiguous, and why wouldn't >>> >> the same method of proof work for CCVVCy-? The proof seems just as >>> easy. >>> > >>> > Our proof engine was Nora, who reduced the existing morphology to a >>> > set of cases. Looking at them, we were reasonably sure the CCVVCy >>> > set didn't break the proof, but Nora didn't have time to check it. >>> > Those cases weren't published anywhere I know of, and are either lost >>> > or buried in Bob's paper archive, which amounts to the same thing. >>> > If you want to produce and publish such a proof, I'm sure Lojbanists >>> > everywhere would be happy to have it. >>> >>> It seems trivial: >>> >>> If CCVVCy- is at the beginning of the string, no initial cmavo form >>> can drop as a cmavo, so there's no chance of tosmabru type issues. >>> >>> There's also no chance of slinku'i type issues because CVVCy, VVCy, >>> VCy, Cy are not valid rafsi. >>> >>> If it's not at the beginning of the string, no initial segment of >>> CCVVCy- could be part of another rafsi for the same reason that no >>> slinku'i is possible >>> >>> That's the proof. What am I missing? >>> >>> >> > Note that a PEG grammar, unlike a YACC grammar, does not prove thi= s, >>> >> > because PEG grammars silently override ambiguities using the rule >>> >> > "first =3D best". That isn't good enough for Lojban morphology, >>> >> > so I consider the CLL proposal a dead letter. >>> >> >>> >> The YACC grammar doesn't handle morphology at all, so I fail to see >>> >> how this has anything to do with the issue. >>> > >>> > I was speaking generally. YACC grammars can provide a proof of >>> > unambiguity in certain circumstances. PEG grammars cannot: they are >>> > not in that business. >>> >>> PEGs are unambiguous by construction, they don't need to be proved >>> unambiguous, since they can't fail to be unambiguous. >>> >>> Whatever issues you may have with the PEG grammar for Lojban (and I >>> can think of some) they cannot be about potential ambiguities, it >>> can't have any. >>> >>> >> If the PEG morphology isn't good enough for Lojban, then Lojban >>> doesn't >>> >> have a formal morphology at all, because the PEG is the only one we >>> >> have so far. >>> > >>> > The fact that the morphology hasn't changed means that the old proof >>> > is still valid, even though we no longer have access to it. That's a= n >>> > unfortunate state of affairs, but it's where we are. >>> >>> Not really. It's obvious to me that Lojban's morphology is >>> unambiguous, but that doesn't mean that any old (purported) proof of >>> its unambiguity is valid. I happily accept Nora's proof was probably >>> valid though. It's also equally obvious that CCVVCy- rafsi or the >>> extended 'y- rafsi don't cause ambiguity. >>> >>> BTW, the PEG grammar doesn't single out CCVVCy- rafsi. It accepts all >>> final-vowel-dropping fu'ivla rafsi that don't cause ambiguities. >>> CCVVCy- is just one particular instance of those. >>> >>> mu'o mi'e xorxes >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> jbovlaste mailing list >>> jbovlaste@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> jbovlaste mailing list >> jbovlaste@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste >> >> > --20cf3071cece66e25b04d43d6e8c Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Never mind, I missed xorxes' response that answered my question.
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 11:16 PM, Ian Johnson <= span dir=3D"ltr"><blindbravado@gmail.com> wrote:
Though it's a silly example, this also r= eveals possible problems with collisions between fu'ivla rafsi and coll= ections of other rafsi: in the presence of {selseli}, ma veljvo zo selselyl= i'a .i lu selseli cliva ji lu se se cliva

mi'e la latro'a mu'o


On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 1:24 AM, Gleki = Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's imagine that we h= ave a brivla. Let it be {selseli}.

Now imagine that you = see a rafsi {selsely-}. Is it a rafsi of {selseli}? Or may be there is anot= her brivla, {selsela}? Or may be there is no {selsela} but it'll be add= ed later, may be in 50 years making old texts with {selsely-} ambiguous.

If we allow brivla that differ in the last vowel only t= hen we should delete that proposal of fu'ivla rafsi from CLL. This is n= ot human-friendly.



On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 at 3:24 AM, Jorge L= lamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 1:17 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:=
> Jorge Llamb=EDas scripsit:
>
>> Surely that can't have been the reason. How did you prove that=
>> decompositions with CCVCy- rafsi were unambiguous, and why wouldn&= #39;t
>> the same method of proof work for CCVVCy-? The proof seems just as= easy.
>
> Our proof engine was Nora, who reduced the existing morphology to a > set of cases. =A0Looking at them, we were reasonably sure the CCVVCy > set didn't break the proof, but Nora didn't have time to check= it.
> Those cases weren't published anywhere I know of, and are either l= ost
> or buried in Bob's paper archive, which amounts to the same thing.=
> If you want to produce and publish such a proof, I'm sure Lojbanis= ts
> everywhere would be happy to have it.

It seems trivial:

If CCVVCy- is at the beginning of the string, no initial cmavo form
can drop as a cmavo, so there's no chance of tosmabru type issues.

There's also no chance of slinku'i type issues because CVVCy, VVCy,=
VCy, Cy are not valid rafsi.

If it's not at the beginning of the string, no initial segment of
CCVVCy- could be part of another rafsi for the same reason that no
slinku'i is possible

That's the proof. What am I missing?

>> > Note that a PEG grammar, unlike a YACC grammar, does not prov= e this,
>> > because PEG grammars silently override ambiguities using the = rule
>> > "first =3D best". =A0That isn't good enough for= Lojban morphology,
>> > so I consider the CLL proposal a dead letter.
>>
>> The YACC grammar doesn't handle morphology at all, so I fail t= o see
>> how this has anything to do with the issue.
>
> I was speaking generally. =A0YACC grammars can provide a proof of
> unambiguity in certain circumstances. =A0PEG grammars cannot: they are=
> not in that business.

PEGs are unambiguous by construction, they don't need to be prove= d
unambiguous, since they can't fail to be unambiguous.

Whatever issues you may have with the PEG grammar for Lojban (and I
can think of some) they cannot be about potential ambiguities, it
can't have any.

>> If the PEG morphology isn't good enough for Lojban, then Lojba= n doesn't
>> have a formal morphology at all, because the PEG is the only one w= e
>> have so far.
>
> The fact that the morphology hasn't changed means that the old pro= of
> is still valid, even though we no longer have access to it. =A0That= 9;s an
> unfortunate state of affairs, but it's where we are.

Not really. It's obvious to me that Lojban's morphology is unambiguous, but that doesn't mean that any old (purported) proof of its unambiguity is valid. I happily accept Nora's proof was probably valid though. It's also equally obvious that CCVVCy- rafsi or the
extended 'y- rafsi don't cause ambiguity.

BTW, the PEG grammar doesn't single out CCVVCy- rafsi. It accepts all final-vowel-dropping fu'ivla rafsi that don't cause ambiguities. CCVVCy- is just one particular instance of those.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.= org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste


_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.= org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste



--20cf3071cece66e25b04d43d6e8c-- --===============4962015363046432391== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ jbovlaste mailing list jbovlaste@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste --===============4962015363046432391==--