Received: from mail-ob0-f189.google.com ([209.85.214.189]:65518)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCMGclZyxExDWnNmABRoEWrLQBQ@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1Svluu-0002uX-Fe; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:37 -0700
Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3sf6249604obb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :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=uhLURgZP+P1unB194y6Z01oN2JSvOEHq+/3AihJcFbA=;
        b=1WfzmDu2BGh2y1E1GI56tLqLDsG/kBzQGfQEidNjpvsbLkL+WvKkdxYNk2fFHQ0SDh
         x2kEQgGKonRzFK4iEAxSQ9lpHHIurh1UE1Z7d+L9o57tgCQFdEB/kuq8i3sGLUm9lfKG
         IUZXwxBvPS3x5ruD4cLOyXvbJa2TJZklvZMu8=
Received: by 10.224.53.6 with SMTP id k6mr2090517qag.16.1343639126151;
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:26 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.101.172.16 with SMTP id z16ls1402103ano.7.gmail; Mon, 30 Jul
 2012 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.115.226 with SMTP id e62mr5740353yhh.34.1343639125364;
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.236.115.226 with SMTP id e62mr5740352yhh.34.1343639125352;
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yx0-f181.google.com (mail-yx0-f181.google.com [209.85.213.181])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t29si2588681yha.0.2012.07.30.02.05.25
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.181 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.213.181;
Received: by yenl3 with SMTP id l3so5695872yen.26
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:25 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.50.94.133 with SMTP id dc5mr10389150igb.16.1343639124981; Mon,
 30 Jul 2012 02:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.64.15.74 with HTTP; Mon, 30 Jul 2012 02:05:24 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1343583435.28651.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1f5a4015-2150-46d6-804e-6f6c43c9acfa@googlegroups.com>
	<1343578731.76088.YahooMailNeo@web184403.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
	<CAGO2uOOu6tnL6WFwmQkZOE3xik+dYyA6XPWuo4c2OvBc2oz7yw@mail.gmail.com>
	<1343583435.28651.YahooMailNeo@web184402.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:05:24 +0200
Message-ID: <CAGO2uOMQFKtJX=YX-8+Ritrg=oRntEFwOPSn8NXWDAcJHTc-+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] What's the current situation with Chomsky's grammar for Lojban?
From: Escape Landsome <escaaape@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: escaaape@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of escaaape@gmail.com designates 209.85.213.181 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=escaaape@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
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: /

> Despite your remark, Linguistics still seems to live pretty much in the
> '70s.  The details of theories have been worked through more thoroughly, the
> relative prominence of different approaches have shifted (without any being
> obliterated -- Social Science are hard to tell from Philosophy sometimes)
> and the mechanical implementation of techniques has vastly improved.  But
> there are still just item-and-process and item-and-arrangement vying with
> one another.

There are still some theoretical linguist who cling to TG and also
old-fashioned folks who study for example old chinese or swahili,
these use TG because that's what they were taught when students, and
there is a lot of inertia in people minds.

But today searchers in the field of Language Automated Treatment, that
is : the guys who try to make computers speak, analyse texts, resume
texts, comment on texts, and simulate human or natlang dialogues...
all of these now currently use Unification Grammars.

UG are :

-- Bresnan's Lexical Functional Grammar LFG

-- HPSG

-- GPSG

-- and also Tree-Adjoining Grammar, TAG

These UG are as much chomskyan as Laplace physics are newtonian.
There is really an epistemologic cut between them.

-- 
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.