Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <543BB275.8050204@gmail.com>
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>
	<543BB275.8050204@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 13:16:32 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2fd=Y8_+kcfbTZrRPVvE4K4qPCwQ2g-MoJ8oDypUQvOWg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0141a010d6955e05055038a5
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--089e0141a010d6955e05055038a5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> 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
> for (b) then the members of a syntactic category must have the same
> behaviour 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
> semantically.
>

While I agree that the baselined formal grammar is not quite a syntax in
your sense, it is also not merely a pseudosyntax (just combinatorics of
morphophonological forms). There is a high correlation between the
morphophonological combinatorics and the logical form, even if it's not
(yet?) quite perfect. For most selmaho, all of its members do have the same
behaviour with regard to logical form, but it's true that some important
selmaho do have many oddball members (the most egregious probably being UI
or PA).

Actually, (a) and (b) presuppose that we are describing a language, but
> there'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
> logical form. I guess (c) is what you're actually doing, which as an
> intellectual exercise is fair enough.


There may also be a middle road between rejecting the formal grammar as
irrelevant junk and treating it as a masterpiece that can't be touched:
treat it as a first draft that needs to be modified here and there to
become closer to a real syntax. In the particular case of "tu'a" in LAhE,
for example, we can just create two subselmaho LAhE1 and LAhE2 which share
the same morphophonological combinatorics but differ (slightly) in the
logical form behind them.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
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 email 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.

--089e0141a010d6955e05055038a5
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 8:07 AM, And Rosta <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a hre=
f=3D"mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 =
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
I think I didn&#39;t make myself clear. Regarding the baselined CLL &#39;gr=
ammar&#39;, which is a pseudosyntax, you can either (a) reject it as irrele=
vant junk (-- the move I would favour) or (b) treat it as an actual syntax.=
 If you go for (b) then the members of a syntactic category must have the s=
ame behaviour with respect to the rules that translate into logical form, a=
nd hence if {tu&#39;a} is in LAhE syntactically then (by definition) it is =
in LAhE semantically.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>While I agree tha=
t the baselined formal grammar is not quite a syntax in your sense, it is a=
lso not merely a pseudosyntax (just combinatorics of morphophonological for=
ms). There is a high correlation between the morphophonological combinatori=
cs and the logical form, even if it&#39;s not (yet?) quite perfect. For mos=
t selmaho, all of its members do have the same behaviour with regard to log=
ical form, but it&#39;s true that some important selmaho do have many oddba=
ll members (the most egregious probably being UI or PA).</div><div><br></di=
v><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Actually, (a) and (b) presuppose that we are describing a language, but the=
re&#39;s also option (c), which is to describe something that isn&#39;t act=
ually a language but nevertheless involves a set of rules mapping pseudosyn=
tax to logical form. I guess (c) is what you&#39;re actually doing, which a=
s an intellectual exercise is fair enough.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>=
There may also be a middle road between rejecting the formal grammar as irr=
elevant junk and treating it as a masterpiece that can&#39;t be touched: tr=
eat it as a first draft that needs to be modified here and there to become =
closer to a real syntax. In the particular case of &quot;tu&#39;a&quot; in =
LAhE, for example, we can just create two subselmaho LAhE1 and LAhE2 which =
share the same morphophonological combinatorics but differ (slightly) in th=
e logical form behind them.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;=
e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--089e0141a010d6955e05055038a5--