Received: from localhost ([::1]:54762 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDaYV-0004IN-Gg; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:17:23 -0800 Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:33941) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDaYP-0004IH-7Y for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:17:18 -0800 Received: by mail-wi0-f178.google.com with SMTP id em10so13976110wid.5 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:17:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=nX1oVQ0vX/Z2oW2BvuA0U5n4RjTZus37wpS7FXiFGoM=; b=jXPR2IULpos7eJ2CPGOCtULI6uf21fpJs0oIJ2gfbg68BwmXDEja+no/p7FfrRitNM L2mvpAO34zRTskJshOVamgXIarsevwPp9wTh9E+svLDm4xsXmjvbsH9w4hBekSBgmGwx DwOxz26tuktbkg8NarHyK55qkypJtjwdIGcAYItp4Wf4FS148FpzBxC5D0Eteifix1dC jQIzm7I3r6OLdbtDtEKN975Zgx2pb8F37GkIvomisK+saG5SZ89U8/uWqZI3/NkCgdrv R2rxehSCDnOjyMdMYavS+JB7WUvXJwJw1Yxin+uSCO3AwCGOsql7zeXko4fP8o7Moc7i FkAw== X-Received: by 10.180.211.34 with SMTP id mz2mr47208059wic.56.1421767029142; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:17:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.86.200 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 07:16:48 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:16:48 +0300 Message-ID: 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: Just a note. I don't think a private llg-members channel is a suitable place for discussions that might interest the rest of humanity. 2015-01-20 17:59 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías : > > 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 [...] 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 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: lojban.org] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [209.85.212.178 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 (gleki.is.my.name[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="===============3837580300558620865==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============3837580300558620865== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c37e02b9bb58050d16ee0c --001a11c37e02b9bb58050d16ee0c Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Just a note. I don't think a private llg-members channel is a suitable place for discussions that might interest the rest of humanity. 2015-01-20 17:59 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas : > > 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 forma= l >> 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 e= ver >> 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 produc= ing >> and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must h= ave >> 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 o= f > 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 character= s > 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 forma= l > 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) i= s > 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 argume= nt > of which predicate, this lojban definition of "bai" can help in telling u= s > how to do (4) when run into the word "bai".. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > > _______________________________________________ > Llg-members mailing list > Llg-members@lojban.org > http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members > > --001a11c37e02b9bb58050d16ee0c Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Just a note. I don't think a private llg-members chann= el is a suitable place for discussions that might interest the rest of huma= nity.

2015-0= 1-20 17:59 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com><= /span>:

On Tue, Jan 20, = 2015 at 9:47 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> 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 gramma= r should do is, given some input of sound or written characters, tell us ho= w to:

(1) convert the input into a string of phone= mes
(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, w= hich terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments of which predica= tes=C2=A0

and conversely, given a list of terms an= d 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 reco= ver the original structure of terms and their relations from it.=C2=A0

(In addition to that, the grammar has to say how to en= code/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&= #39;s tersmu is trying to do (4). I would agree that the way our formal gra= mmars 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 wa= y I understand what guskant's concern is, is that we should provide loj= ban definitions for words in such a way as to facilitate (4). As a simple e= xample, if we know that "bai" is defined as "fi'o bapli&= quot;, then using the rules in (4) for what "fi'o" says about= which term is an argument of which predicate, this lojban definition of &q= uot;bai" can help in telling us how to do (4) when run into the word &= quot;bai"..

mu'o mi'e xorxes


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members


--001a11c37e02b9bb58050d16ee0c-- --===============3837580300558620865== 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 --===============3837580300558620865==--