Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:34:45 -0800 (PST)
From: djandus <jandew@gmail.com>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-ID: <8420465.439.1321558485154.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqff21>
In-Reply-To: <20b482a7-b58a-4e4a-a3f7-27b49ba861c0@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
References: <20b482a7-b58a-4e4a-a3f7-27b49ba861c0@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: New PA-proposal
MIME-Version: 1.0
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_438_15634746.1321558485152"
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_438_15634746.1321558485152
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

This seems really impressive and well-thought-out to me and deserves 
careful inspection.

I have to admit, from the start I was afraid that your demands for the 
grammar would make it far too complicated, but it actually seems rather 
intuitive. Just to make sure I understand things, I'm seeing that to make a 
string:
PA1 combine freely
PA2 exist individually
PA3 modify the string to the right
PA4 separate strings, modifying internally
PA5 are PA4 but with single usage
PA6 are specialized individual numbers

Just looking at that, the "pretty pretty simple simple" part of me wants to 
sort them primarily by basic grammatical usage. That is, combine PA2 and 
PA6 since they both have words that stand alone as number strings, and 
combine PA4 and PA5 since they both modify internally. The extra 
grammatical rules can be explained in subgroups. (e.g. refer to PA6 as PA2* 
or something) To clarify further, I feel that while it is certainly a 
valuable goal to make every grammatical PA construct be meaningful, it is 
also lofty and should be sacrificed when necessary for the sake of having a 
primary grammar that is clear and easy to understand. Additionally, the 
secondary rules are more particulars on interpretation or restrictions to 
provide a computer than a human. (As in, expressing that the words you call 
PA5 can only be used once is extremely simple to tack on as an extra 
subcondition, while it is more valuable for structure and grammar to group 
it with PA4)

To illustrate my point, I'll use notation entirely distinct from selma'o -- 
I'll use "#" for an unmodified number string, which can be composed of what 
you call PA1 (any combination), PA2, or PA6. I'll use "." for an internal 
modifier, and "-" for a left-hand modifier.

With this simple categorization, I'd like to ask for clarification on your 
more interesting grammar suggestions. You claim that right-grouping is 
necessary, but the example you provided seems (to me, correct me if I'm 
wrong) to illustrate left-grouping! That is, I'm getting the gist of your 
grammar suggestion to be that you can have any number of number strings 
automatically associated together. (Providing there is some way to tell 
them apart, implying in my mind that either another internal separator or 
number string terminator is desired.) That is:
# # # #
is parsed as having four number descriptions all describing the same 
amount. Additionally, I see you applying a primarily *left*-grouping 
methodology with PA3, saying that you can have any number of left-hand 
modifiers "prefixing" any string:
+++++# +++++#
would have two strings with five modifiers each, both of which are 
numerical descriptions of the same amount.
Additionally, I would describe the internal modifiers less as separating 
numerical strings, and more like joining strings together. (Though this is 
simply a matter of perspective.) Either way, that part says you can simply 
have
#.# #.#.#
Which would be two numerical descriptions, one composed of two substrings 
and the other composed of three.

This sort of grammar seems pretty simple, though implementing it certainly 
would require a few very critical editations to the current grammar. (I am 
certainly fond of fi'u for the golden ratio -- something that could easily 
be accommodated for in this grammar with the use of a special 
separator/marker/terminator of some kind.)

Before I close, I'd like to address your example of {li rau su'o pa} with 
how I see your grammar would be implemented. {rau}, being of your PA2, 
represents a full string (#). {su'o}, of your PA3, is a left-hand modifier 
(+). {pa} is, of course, PA1, and without any adjacent PA1 represents a 
full string (#). Thus, the structure is simply
# +#
with the two descriptions "enough" and "at least one" purported as 
equivalent descriptions of the same value. With this outlook, there is no 
issue of "left grouping" or "right grouping", as there are simply stacked 
left-hand modifiers that only modify the next string. One issue would be 
declaring that the internal modifiers are "close grouping", with {pi} and 
{pi'e} grouping before left-hand modifiers as expected. Otherwise, the 
grammar would be complete, intuitive, and often more so than the current, 
if your {li rau su'o pa} assessment is accurate. (I apparently don't know 
the current PA grammar well enough, as it simply seems silly to me to try 
to group {<rau su'o>}.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/RImbxLmyHV0J.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


------=_Part_438_15634746.1321558485152
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

This seems really impressive and well-thought-out to me and deserves carefu=
l inspection.<div><br></div><div>I have to admit, from the start I was afra=
id that your demands for the grammar would make it far too complicated, but=
 it actually seems rather intuitive. Just to make sure I understand things,=
 I'm seeing that to make a string:</div><div>PA1 combine freely</div><div>P=
A2 exist individually</div><div>PA3 modify the string to the right</div><di=
v>PA4 separate strings, modifying internally</div><div>PA5 are PA4 but with=
 single usage</div><div>PA6 are specialized individual numbers</div><div><b=
r></div><div>Just looking at that, the "pretty pretty simple simple" part o=
f me wants to sort them primarily by basic grammatical usage. That is, comb=
ine PA2 and PA6 since they both have words that stand alone as number strin=
gs, and combine PA4 and PA5 since they both modify internally. The extra gr=
ammatical rules can be explained in subgroups. (e.g. refer to PA6 as PA2* o=
r something) To clarify further, I feel that while it is certainly a valuab=
le goal to make every grammatical PA construct be meaningful, it is also lo=
fty and should be sacrificed when necessary for the sake of having a primar=
y grammar that is clear and easy to understand. Additionally, the secondary=
 rules are more particulars on interpretation or restrictions to provide a =
computer than a human. (As in, expressing that the words you call PA5 can o=
nly be used once is extremely simple to tack on as an extra subcondition, w=
hile it is more valuable for structure and grammar to group it with PA4)</d=
iv><div><br></div><div>To illustrate my point, I'll use notation entirely d=
istinct from selma'o -- I'll use "#" for an unmodified number string, which=
 can be composed of what you call PA1 (any combination), PA2, or PA6. I'll =
use "." for an internal modifier, and "-" for a left-hand modifier.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>With this simple categorization, I'd like to ask for clar=
ification on your more interesting grammar suggestions. You claim that righ=
t-grouping is necessary, but the example you provided seems (to me, correct=
 me if I'm wrong) to illustrate left-grouping! That is, I'm getting the gis=
t of your grammar suggestion to be that you can have any number of number s=
trings automatically associated together. (Providing there is some way to t=
ell them apart, implying in my mind that either another internal separator =
or number string terminator is desired.) That is:</div><div># # # #</div><d=
iv>is parsed as having four number descriptions all describing the same amo=
unt. Additionally, I see you applying a primarily <i>left</i>-grouping meth=
odology with PA3, saying that you can have any number of left-hand modifier=
s "prefixing" any string:</div><div>+++++# +++++#</div><div>would have two =
strings with five modifiers each, both of which are numerical descriptions =
of the same amount.</div><div>Additionally, I would describe the internal m=
odifiers less as separating numerical strings, and more like joining string=
s together. (Though this is simply a matter of perspective.) Either way, th=
at part says you can simply have</div><div>#.# #.#.#</div><div>Which would =
be two numerical descriptions, one composed of two substrings and the other=
 composed of three.</div><div><br></div><div>This sort of grammar seems pre=
tty simple, though implementing it certainly would require a few very criti=
cal editations to the current grammar. (I am certainly fond of fi'u for the=
 golden ratio -- something that could easily be accommodated for in this gr=
ammar with the use of a special separator/marker/terminator of some kind.)<=
/div><div><br></div><div>Before I close, I'd like to address your example o=
f {li rau su'o pa} with how I see your grammar would be implemented. {rau},=
 being of your PA2, represents a full string (#). {su'o}, of your PA3, is a=
 left-hand modifier (+). {pa} is, of course, PA1, and without any adjacent =
PA1 represents a full string (#). Thus, the structure is simply</div><div>#=
 +#</div><div>with the two descriptions "enough" and "at least one" purport=
ed as equivalent descriptions of the same value. With this outlook, there i=
s no issue of "left grouping" or "right grouping", as there are simply stac=
ked left-hand modifiers that only modify the next string. One issue would b=
e declaring that the internal modifiers are "close grouping", with {pi} and=
 {pi'e} grouping before left-hand modifiers as expected. Otherwise, the gra=
mmar would be complete, intuitive, and often more so than the current, if y=
our {li rau su'o pa} assessment is accurate. (I apparently don't know the c=
urrent PA grammar well enough, as it simply seems silly to me to try to gro=
up {&lt;rau su'o&gt;}.)</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msg/lojban/-/RImbxLmyHV0J">https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/RI=
mbxLmyHV0J</a>.<br />=20
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />


------=_Part_438_15634746.1321558485152--