Received: from localhost ([::1]:54578 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDaH5-0003yl-Lt; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:59:23 -0800 Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com ([74.125.82.182]:34430) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDaH2-0003ya-67 for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:59:21 -0800 Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id l61so12741765wev.13 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:59:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=YC3reMLzfoVZGWibt6k3ad98WZo9Q2XLOgbcI9BmupU=; b=JhBXZwbAcOfwftmun8OuygZtb4YdzPSsPpiomms6l19Aqlmwt/v8dicLdkVWiK5f26 9CramDXU+2ECJdV+pGzNzZ1jue3xrxyY1spnvH1VqNfPnLOsBT9tCbA2SF25il0OhRIQ t2+57L7GPBcqPLRpnjVuvi05ew4ygHP6IQkBTbIeySt74CSMNVyOozbXF/Ybn95l6Wb/ sbhhTXzh3tqqJ5yCcaZuIW5ai6hZ7jtQtrafc8KV9WRDZCtzfSqYe5KmXW4KxI8N2KaY 2tmY0xupVDa6bK5JNqJOzzw1NRq+9KWd21bfTNEd3y/X5eN8FC1ryw1otlAX1JusPTBy gE/A== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.126.99 with SMTP id mx3mr47811212wib.66.1421765952588; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:59:12 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.56.208 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 06:59:12 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 11:59:12 -0300 Message-ID: From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.7 X-Spam_score_int: 7 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:47 AM, And Rosta wrote: > > On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" wrote: > > I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could > > bring any damage to Lojban, > > It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal > grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a > useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of > which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not > really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit > actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK > could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be > discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal > grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for the > actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might > jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit > deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever > plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once > said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously producing > and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must have > been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language > faculty.) > Would it be fair to say that what an actual grammar should do is, given some input of sound or written characters, tell us how to: [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in gmail.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [74.125.82.182 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (jjllambias[at]gmail.com) 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders Subject: Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few jbovlaste entries X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1277579982684225342==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============1277579982684225342== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=e89a8f8389d18ed44c050d16ae5e --e89a8f8389d18ed44c050d16ae5e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:47 AM, And Rosta wrote: > > On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" wrote: > > I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could > > bring any damage to Lojban, > > It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal > grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a > useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of > which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not > really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit > actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK > could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be > discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal > grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for the > actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might > jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit > deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever > plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once > said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously producing > and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must have > been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language > faculty.) > Would it be fair to say that what an actual grammar should do is, given some input of sound or written characters, tell us how to: (1) convert the input into a string of phonemes (2) convert the string of phonemes into a string of words (3) determine a tree structure for the string of words (4) determine which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments of which predicates and conversely, given a list of terms and predicate relations among them, the grammar should tell us how to put all that into a string of characters or sounds such that someone else can recover the original structure of terms and their relations from it. (In addition to that, the grammar has to say how to encode/decode illocutionary force, and maybe some other things.) If that's more or less on track, then we can say that the YACC/EBNF formal grammars do (3). The PEG grammar does (2) and (3). Martin's tersmu is trying to do (4). I would agree that the way our formal grammars do (3) is probably not much like the way our brains do (3), but I'm not sure I see what alternative we have. The way I understand what guskant's concern is, is that we should provide lojban definitions for words in such a way as to facilitate (4). As a simple example, if we know that "bai" is defined as "fi'o bapli", then using the rules in (4) for what "fi'o" says about which term is an argument of which predicate, this lojban definition of "bai" can help in telling us how to do (4) when run into the word "bai".. mu'o mi'e xorxes --e89a8f8389d18ed44c050d16ae5e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:47 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com><= /span> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could
> bring any damage to Lojban,

It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal = grammar, which, since formal grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for the actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously producing and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must have been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language faculty.)=C2=A0

=
Would it be fair to say that what an actual grammar shoul= d do is, given some input of sound or written characters, tell us how to:

(1) convert the input into a string of phonemes
(2) convert the string of phonemes into a string of words
= (3) determine a tree structure for the string of words
(4) determ= ine which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are predicates, which te= rms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments of which predicates=C2= =A0

and conversely, given a list of terms and pred= icate relations among them, the grammar should tell us how to put all that = into a string of characters or sounds such that someone else can recover th= e original structure of terms and their relations from it.=C2=A0
=
(In addition to that, the grammar has to say how to encode/d= ecode illocutionary force, and maybe some other things.)

If that's more or less on track, then we can say that the YACC/E= BNF formal grammars do (3). The PEG grammar does (2) and (3). Martin's = tersmu is trying to do (4). I would agree that the way our formal grammars = do (3) is probably not much like the way our brains do (3), but I'm not= sure I see what alternative we have.

The way I un= derstand what guskant's concern is, is that we should provide lojban de= finitions for words in such a way as to facilitate (4). As a simple example= , if we know that "bai" is defined as "fi'o bapli",= then using the rules in (4) for what "fi'o" says about which= term is an argument of which predicate, this lojban definition of "ba= i" can help in telling us how to do (4) when run into the word "b= ai"..

mu'o mi'e xorxes

=
--e89a8f8389d18ed44c050d16ae5e-- --===============1277579982684225342== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============1277579982684225342==--