Received: from mail-wg0-f63.google.com ([74.125.82.63]:61123)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRB4HE52QQKGQE4DROC7I@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XddTU-0001JC-SW
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:41 -0700
Received: by mail-wg0-f63.google.com with SMTP id m15sf683114wgh.8
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:29 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help
         :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=VzueUwYojpYroCVLIRsPALFT1dihYucxeLaNjoCeg2o=;
        b=YWpBDJCeECTuUtcsZSzU+2xx8bfpSJoKUTEhZJwR08BAl3IygN5olDilYjf5RuwG49
         NH5DHFYEns2wn0DCVFUtu+qmHuPYZn1coypBUGqAIm7Pdde1/aX3ETUfupmfkhWXdpvE
         N9IxSNzfIZijKaJRRCY+n6fPu2y6OGQK2YhdklbmNI7bPbKkpzAN/VxIy1MJU8GcKOzO
         DR2XjzhIagnXqTMK4oWJdx+pGk1N6XBAZ0XvNMbgPIxNspuZhNN/El4kNXjX52KSJxdA
         lTf1tWbUd62zzWXBOJH5zq5OF7CbveUTkiTraexO/XEdUKptbdTW28XRTWkM5SY+ZxgF
         Js1Q==
X-Received: by 10.152.3.229 with SMTP id f5mr989laf.34.1413198448957;
        Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.153.6.42 with SMTP id cr10ls44941lad.73.gmail; Mon, 13 Oct
 2014 04:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.112.168.225 with SMTP id zz1mr450224lbb.8.1413198447657;
        Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o2si123817wib.2.2014.10.13.04.07.27
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c;
Received: by mail-wi0-f172.google.com with SMTP id n3so7045215wiv.11
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.134.100 with SMTP id pj4mr20929809wjb.72.1413198447558;
        Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.208] ([95.147.226.113])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id u9sm5714537wiz.24.2014.10.13.04.07.25
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Mon, 13 Oct 2014 04:07:26 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <543BB275.8050204@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:07:33 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
References: <20141008015245.GB17866@gonzales> <CAO7tK2fokLXQ3queR+jP88xaoxMPQBQUojsAOZrF49hKTY=-LQ@mail.gmail.com> <20141009010533.GF18854@gonzales> <CAO7tK2erLDXJy5jOAx7--+vamH9brWJNSH2K82ACJgKbDVvD8g@mail.gmail.com> <20141009233031.GC1592@gonzales> <CAO7tK2cpdLRm8AOtHjADMKMP10uFu_N4mfddsP0-q07YnFzSLA@mail.gmail.com> <20141010234033.GG22868@gonzales> <CAO7tK2dXyFzuCiv3g18B2poF3YZwE4RQFTTvdfXGVXuycWmLyw@mail.gmail.com> <20141011021201.GH22868@gonzales> <543917AA.30802@gmail.com> <20141011141805.GC23876@gonzales>
In-Reply-To: <20141011141805.GC23876@gonzales>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com;       dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com;       dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

Martin Bays, On 11/10/2014 15:18:
> * Saturday, 2014-10-11 at 12:42 +0100 - And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>:
>
>> Martin Bays, On 11/10/2014 03:12:
>>> it looks like {tu'a} is in LAhE only syntactically, not
>>> semantically, and must be handled separately.
>>>
>>> (So then tu'a needing opacity is no longer an argument that the rest of
>>> LAhE should get it...)
>>
>> Given that syntax is logical form -- rather than combinatorics of
>> morphophonological forms, which is pseudosyntax -- your framing of the
>> issue should not be accepted. (I realize I've expressed that in an ex
>> cathedra way, but I'm happy to argue the point if it is contested.)
>
> I'm not familiar with the syntax vs pseudosyntax distinction. Probably
> there are multiple competing definitions involved, but at least one
> meaning of "syntax" has the question of what strings are accepted by
> a formal grammar to be a matter of syntax. That's what I meant.

'Pseudosyntax' is my term for 'what formal grammar (computer science) terms=
 _syntax_', and by 'syntax' I meant 'the syntax component of (glossic) lang=
uage'. I meant not to reprove your choice of terms but rather to insist tha=
t if we are describing a (glossic) language rather than a computer science =
object, then your move to distinguish the 'syntactic' from the 'semantic' w=
as illegitimate.

>> Me I would advocate throwing away the pseudosyntax as the unlinguistic
>> junk it is, but anybody set on keeping it as the basis for actual
>> syntax couldn't get away with this wishful distinction between
>> 'syntax' and 'semantics' where 'semantics' is used to mean 'structure
>> of logical form'.
>
> Of course logical forms are also syntactic, but the (probably not fully
> realisable) aim here is to translate lojban to a logical formalism whose
> semantics is standard or relatively straightforward to define, so the
> logical forms are at least a useful proxy for the actual semantics. Of
> course there's still a distinction; equivalent non-equal formulae exist.

I think I didn't make myself clear. Regarding the baselined CLL 'grammar', =
which is a pseudosyntax, you can either (a) reject it as irrelevant junk (-=
- the move I would favour) or (b) treat it as an actual syntax. If you go f=
or (b) then the members of a syntactic category must have the same behaviou=
r with respect to the rules that translate into logical form, and hence if =
{tu'a} is in LAhE syntactically then (by definition) it is in LAhE semantic=
ally.

Actually, (a) and (b) presuppose that we are describing a language, but the=
re's also option (c), which is to describe something that isn't actually a =
language but nevertheless involves a set of rules mapping pseudosyntax to l=
ogical form. I guess (c) is what you're actually doing, which as an intelle=
ctual exercise is fair enough.

--And.

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.