Received: from mail-ob0-f189.google.com ([209.85.214.189]:40812) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SvWCq-0005px-S5; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:19:22 -0700 Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3sf5572327obb.16 for ; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-yahoo-newman-property:x-yahoo-newman-id :x-ymail-osg:x-mailer:references:message-id:date:from:reply-to :subject:to:in-reply-to:mime-version:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=QOELzZyht4q9TLPG764YhKkQKeRdgzdYVKNEdOI66oQ=; b=qv46ubY/dbWpuxsgLRMHjkC0SrmbTLEHifxSKFPfBdipFRhfLhFN2ym8gZuEEe9mpk tokqBbt8PgEaFurGzv/fs6CJpJ6J4ASfHeqeXcGiq7oJ6nXfySqtaEQtkMcKDDa8Q+1y C/FTTG6Cj6BRDTaqu4HFVBWqrL+RKfpLtS9LY= Received: by 10.50.197.129 with SMTP id iu1mr1190290igc.3.1343578734300; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:54 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.178.73 with SMTP id cw9ls1059922igc.4.canary; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.43.133 with SMTP id uc5mr3681833icb.33.1343578732746; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.43.133 with SMTP id uc5mr3681832icb.33.1343578732721; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nm25-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm25-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.91.213]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id s10si1527678igs.0.2012.07.29.09.18.52; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.213 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.91.213; Received: from [98.138.90.48] by nm25.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2012 16:18:52 -0000 Received: from [68.142.194.243] by tm1.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2012 16:18:52 -0000 Received: from [66.94.237.107] by t1.bullet.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2012 16:18:52 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1012.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 29 Jul 2012 16:18:52 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 209776.11375.bm@omp1012.access.mail.mud.yahoo.com Received: (qmail 89815 invoked by uid 60001); 29 Jul 2012 16:18:51 -0000 X-YMail-OSG: Y0cNRKsVM1kMV5AsdonUdBWNCS4C9Nos2UicZKqA0TTqPLL FdGQ0cl3BncyEx4KfsKs4nZ3CtqdydBWRIAoXqTZqfZCeoxA4kwgInXScD5d gwweqQzjwOUf_kpJjLOXMRX3TGKnu9z_0b6nQ0DIUn72I6xHwWNvWjvf8v.k Nm.sIq0qmuCCaGrJMMTjpnmbuy36stYcADYHZDrQSZmf3VDmb6Pr.qLxzTAt aZalkwb3yuWBcuyRDUW9R_urM.pfiOzPO98bByjCITfrZ2vRXnn0RiBBmRos iWPVQxQNHO1Cgs9C9EHHIH1NQY8oD5_LEPApsXf2jsM49o_X1NfisioRPOwp 4hqadXCOq.ik6mXarOb501V7C8_6Pg1oekvoiMKGb.MG5fdv4HTqvDNvMSYu .RrxjZWOZk2zU6FVGck5r8C5IeZnmA9vCicBLvTglQvsb89cHAJwo19g1zKR AG.fk6Dzr6VO0fIwjVv07HeAtbIGW90ogbMrxtH5_VcHftx4VQZqVpH1tL0F tP7b8QaUUmJKIWAaOKBBWbIi7UzvD81W2HNhYlxM5WM5UCyw4XeiU0uH_0Xm y.vr.jfME_L6WAL0.mYcCUSIXHJqGkpZKXW9quRhmi2yI87IgnJOaz.cw.ZO HYMG.5ONfe_.JdmRGzyYlIusWPDvn3CV00DBUSqnLzZX0DP2GEIymQzSzUJf sE1s- Received: from [99.92.108.194] by web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com via HTTP; Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:51 PDT X-Mailer: YahooMailWebService/0.8.120.356233 References: <1f5a4015-2150-46d6-804e-6f6c43c9acfa@googlegroups.com> Message-ID: <1343578731.76088.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Date: Sun, 29 Jul 2012 09:18:51 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] What's the current situation with Chomsky's grammar for Lojban? To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" In-Reply-To: <1f5a4015-2150-46d6-804e-6f6c43c9acfa@googlegroups.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.91.213 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@yahoo.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: multipart/alternative; boundary="-6906265-1003434877-1343578731=:76088" X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.7 X-Spam_score_int: -6 X-Spam_bar: / ---6906265-1003434877-1343578731=:76088 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable To answer the first and last questions, so far as I know, no study of Logla= n or Lojban using a transformational grammar has ever appeared.=A0 Nor, mor= e aptly, a Montague grammar neither.=A0 Both seem perfectly feasible to me,= since there is, in fact, nothing very unusual about Logjam grammars overal= l (assuming we actually get things settled down).=A0 Indeed, Logjam is, by = design, pretty simple grammatically, even for a complex grammar-building sy= stem like Chomsky's or Montague's.=A0 What is not clear is whether a formal= grammar of either of these sorts could be built to correspond exactly to w= hatever grammar finally becomes official and whether such a grammar could b= e provably monoparsing.=A0 I suspect that those issues -- involving especia= lly restrictions on deletion rules -- have been a great delaying factor (th= ey certainly have been for me). ________________________________ From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com=20 Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:02 AM Subject: [lojban] What's the current situation with Chomsky's grammar for L= ojban? =20 Just short citation from=A0 http://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/swh.txt 115. lojbab: (responding to 106.) The claim I made is that John Parks-Clif= ford, >a linguist involved with Loglan since 1975, told me that he investigated 1= 970's >Loglan using TG techniques during the 70's and was able to demonstrate to = his >own satisfaction that all features of Loglan were amenable to TG analysis,= and >that he found no 'unusual' transforms. More recently, a student in Clevela= nd >has been attempting to develop a more formal TG description of the languag= e. >This will undoubtedly take a while, but he reported to me earlier this yea= r that >not only had he found nothing unusual, he had identified some elegant feat= ures >of the language using TG techniques. The features he reported are indeed = con- >sistent with the language definition, and included aspects that the studen= t had >not been taught (i.e. that we had not put into any published documents tha= t the >student had received. So where is that description by a student from Cleveland? What's that unusual in Lojban grammar? Have there been other attempts to describe our beloved badna bangu?=A0 --=20 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/lo= jban/-/HMVkQlJMvtYJ. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den. ---6906265-1003434877-1343578731=:76088 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
To answer = the first and last questions, so far as I know, no study of Loglan or Lojba= n using a transformational grammar has ever appeared.  Nor, more aptly= , a Montague grammar neither.  Both seem perfectly feasible to me, sin= ce there is, in fact, nothing very unusual about Logjam grammars overall (a= ssuming we actually get things settled down).  Indeed, Logjam is, by d= esign, pretty simple grammatically, even for a complex grammar-building sys= tem like Chomsky's or Montague's.  What is not clear is whether a form= al grammar of either of these sorts could be built to correspond exactly to= whatever grammar finally becomes official and whether such a grammar could= be provably monoparsing.  I suspect that those issues -- involving es= pecially restrictions on deletion rules -- have been a great delaying factor (they certainly have been for me).

=
=
From: Gle= ki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, July 29, 2012 4:02 AM
= Subject: [lojban] What's the = current situation with Chomsky's grammar for Lojban?
Just short citation from  http://www.lojban.org/files/why-lojban/swh.txt
115. lojbab: (responding to 106.=
)  The claim I made is that John Parks-Clifford,
a lingui=
st involved with Loglan	since 1975, told me that he investigated 1970's
Loglan using TG	techniques during the 70's and was able	to d=
emonstrate to his
own satisfaction that all features of L=
oglan were amenable to TG analysis, and
that he	found no =
'unusual' transforms.	More recently, a student in Cleveland
ha=
s been attempting to develop a more formal TG	description of the language.<=
/pre>
This will undoubtedly take a while, but	he reported to me=
 earlier this year that
not only had he	found nothing unu=
sual, he had identified some elegant features
of the lang=
uage	using TG techniques.  The features he reported are indeed con-
sistent	with the language definition, and included aspects that	=
the student had
not been taught	(i.e. that we had not put=
 into
 any published documents that the
student	had received.

So where is that description by = a student from Cleveland?
What's that unusual in Lojban grammar?<= /div>
Have there been other attempts to describe our beloved badna bang= u? 

--
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/-/HMVkQlJMvtYJ.
=20 To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.


--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
---6906265-1003434877-1343578731=:76088--