Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::236;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2fd=Y8_+kcfbTZrRPVvE4K4qPCwQ2g-MoJ8oDypUQvOWg@mail.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>
	<CAO7tK2fd=Y8_+kcfbTZrRPVvE4K4qPCwQ2g-MoJ8oDypUQvOWg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2014 11:07:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dPma6nWu2kG+Tk+ONHQPR4W429m7E5VEq2P7RHmGiJPGXQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@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=001a113cd60071e8a00505c3c29e
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a113cd60071e8a00505c3c29e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>
> 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 actua=
l
>> 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 sa=
me
> behaviour with regard to logical form, but it's true that some important
> selmaho do have many oddball members (the most egregious probably being U=
I
> or PA).
>

It is a pseudosyntax, but there also exists an implicit undocumented syntax
and an unlinguistic mapping from the pseudosyntax to the implicit syntax,
which makes the pseudosyntax look like more than junk. Once the actual
syntax is documented, the pseudosyntax could safely be discarded.

The key requirement for the syntax is that it constitute (the syntactic
aspect of) logical forms. Additionally, tho, for a language whose creators
and users are so keen for it to be used and spoken as a human language, it
is likely that the syntax should look like the syntax of a human language.
It's probably to soon (in the development of linguistics) to say what that
is, but traits like headedness, lexicality of heads (and/or constraints on
nonlexicality of heads), and (plausibly but more controversially)
binary-branching look like plausible candidate universal features. A syntax
whose phrases are all binary-branching and lexically-headed looks a good
bet to not fall outside human language.


>
> 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 actua=
lly
>> 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 shar=
e
> the same morphophonological combinatorics but differ (slightly) in the
> logical form behind them.
>

It can't be a first draft, because it can't be a syntax, but it can be a
stage in the development of a first draft.  The discussions you and Martin
are having can lead to a notion of what the syntax is like. You can then
work out rules that generate that syntax directly, instead of deriving it
by rule from the pseudosyntax. So what Martin is doing is maybe the most
important work that's been done for Lojban, tho it's all going over my
(busy elsewhere, insufficiently-attentive, and somewhat foggy) head.

--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.

--001a113cd60071e8a00505c3c29e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 5:16 PM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;=
<a href=3D"mailto:jjllambias@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">jjllambias@gmail.=
com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;=
padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;b=
order-left-style:solid" class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div cla=
ss=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span>On Mon, Oct 13, 201=
4 at 8:07 AM, And Rosta <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:and.rosta@g=
mail.com" target=3D"_blank">and.rosta@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><b=
lockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-co=
lor:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class=
=3D"gmail_quote"><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></span><div>While I ag=
ree that the baselined formal grammar is not quite a syntax in your sense, =
it is also not merely a pseudosyntax (just combinatorics of morphophonologi=
cal forms). There is a high correlation between the morphophonological comb=
inatorics and the logical form, even if it&#39;s not (yet?) quite perfect. =
For most selmaho, all of its members do have the same behaviour with regard=
 to logical form, but it&#39;s true that some important selmaho do have man=
y oddball members (the most egregious probably being UI or PA).</div></div>=
</div></div></blockquote><div>=C2=A0</div><div>It is a pseudosyntax, but th=
ere also exists an implicit undocumented syntax and an unlinguistic mapping=
 from the pseudosyntax to the implicit syntax, which makes the pseudosyntax=
 look like more than junk. Once the actual syntax is documented, the pseudo=
syntax could safely be discarded.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>The key requir=
ement for the syntax is that it constitute (the syntactic aspect of) logica=
l forms. Additionally, tho, for a language whose creators and users are so =
keen for it to be used and spoken as a human language, it is likely that th=
e syntax should look like the syntax of a human language. It&#39;s probably=
 to soon (in the development of linguistics) to say what that is, but trait=
s like headedness, lexicality of heads (and/or constraints on nonlexicality=
 of heads), and (plausibly but more controversially) binary-branching look =
like plausible candidate universal features. A syntax whose phrases are all=
 binary-branching and lexically-headed looks a good bet to not fall outside=
 human language.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px =
0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-w=
idth:1px;border-left-style:solid" class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"><d=
iv class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><span><div><br></div><b=
lockquote style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;padding-left:1ex;border-left-co=
lor:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid" class=
=3D"gmail_quote">
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></spa=
n><div>There may also be a middle road between rejecting the formal grammar=
 as irrelevant junk and treating it as a masterpiece that can&#39;t be touc=
hed: 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 &quot;tu&#39;a&qu=
ot; 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.=C2=A0</div></div></div></div></blockquot=
e><div>=C2=A0</div><div>It can&#39;t be a first draft, because it can&#39;t=
 be a syntax, but it can be a stage in the development of a first draft.=C2=
=A0 The discussions you and Martin are having can lead to a notion of what =
the syntax is like. You can then work out rules that generate that syntax d=
irectly, instead of deriving it by rule from the pseudosyntax. So what Mart=
in is doing is maybe the most important work that&#39;s been done for Lojba=
n, tho it&#39;s all going over my (busy elsewhere, insufficiently-attentive=
, and somewhat foggy) head.</div><div>=C2=A0</div><div>--And.</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 />

--001a113cd60071e8a00505c3c29e--