Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]:52795) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RSRFt-0001bN-7Z; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:37:48 -0800 Received: by vbbez10 with SMTP id ez10sf6396320vbb.16 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:37:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:date:in-reply-to:references :user-agent:x-http-useragent:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post :list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type; bh=MM9YOxvpnMEZC7Vm/8l3/f9PrI50HgnUeWGJlFfAQZw=; b=WuqGRyMZv2X1F0t+g2ia9mI66dxvhGZKtDWbfqMIQS3R1M/j1ULpxEgtcIlZ/oAYyj sHIWL7ElcQBg/0GcQw46cdHKCRunZDNeCqXeOWvMb8bClCnx4+BS9uIuxQcOQTYEDhu8 hLuO1fWwF85R1IeKdLnYo2h071++6PhBmnWsY= Received: by 10.52.76.71 with SMTP id i7mr4853774vdw.19.1321871793117; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:33 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.221.13.132 with SMTP id pm4ls8715835vcb.5.canary; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.30.195 with SMTP id u3mr17870272vdh.3.1321871792398; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.52.30.195 with SMTP id u3mr17870270vdh.3.1321871792391; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-vx0-f183.google.com (mail-vx0-f183.google.com [209.85.220.183]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id bu17si4753104vdc.0.2011.11.21.02.36.32 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jakobnybonissen@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.183 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.183; Received: by vcge1 with SMTP id e1so6983267vcg.10 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.20.73 with SMTP id l9mr6152742vde.15.1321871792333; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) Received: by u6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:36:32 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <6369550.645.1321835574315.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqzz20> References: <20b482a7-b58a-4e4a-a3f7-27b49ba861c0@p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com> <6369550.645.1321835574315.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@yqzz20> User-Agent: G2/1.0 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:8.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/8.0,gzip(gfe) Message-ID: <5017af79-0acd-403e-9a90-83b6699cd296@u6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: New PA-proposal From: la klaku To: lojban X-Original-Sender: jakobnybonissen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jakobnybonissen@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.183 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jakobnybonissen@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / djandus: Your idea of heirarchial grammar is *brilliant*. We can keep the current grammar satisfied, and still have something official (maybe sometime even implemented in some machine?) that we can point to when someone throws an impossible PA in a sentence. At the very least we can unambigiously point out why {li pi pi pi pi} is nalsmudra. I'm not all too satisfied with the specifics of your proposed PA^, though. For instance, {pi ro} should be grammatical(*), while {pi pai} should not. (I've changed my mind there). Also, we {pi}, {ra'e} and {ji'i} should have different gunselma'o-grammar, as {pi ji'i mu} should be grammatical, but not {pi pi mu}. You actually wrote that these should only appear one in your definitions, but this is not how selma'o are defined - they are always interchangable. Presumably also so with gunselma'o. *Actually, this could be easily defined to be ungrammatical. The trouble is - it's used all over the place as it is now. But this means we must make a lot of gunselma'o in PA alone? Well yes, but since they're not (as of now) in the official grammar, there should be as many rules as there are already semantic rules for interpreting them "correctly". The idea of taking some of the useless mekso cmavo and use it in our PA^-grammar is brilliant, but I think we have a snowball's chance in hell of getting the BPFK's approval for that one. (Though perhaps not? It is, after all, Robin Lee Powell who is one of the most prominent critics of mekso math) There are also a few other minor issues: Does {ce'i}, which i've never seen in print really deserve to be unique in that it takes the previous PA^ instead of the following? Ofc we also would need to make sure the gunma'o grammar of PA is consistent and unambigious. I'll shortly mail you your document back with some editing, :) mi'e la klaku -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. 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.