Received: from mail-we0-f185.google.com ([74.125.82.185]:38110) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDdXk-0005ak-9s for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:49 -0800 Received: by mail-we0-f185.google.com with SMTP id w62sf1164701wes.2 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:41 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type: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; bh=ckyzwbw0ZeAFWO9ZCMEUUsPFeaJlh55JdkARFpHZSyM=; b=fIfOMK8qIIwhl9cBG38XdJVPkx18CMOuj7Bxl7Tev1Bfeh9Q6Z25u5VQGf2n3PxVaa YT3+5LwCylPhy7Wo93FH5TY9IuyqTvK9yp8LDl6dz6of8/1sd2W7rA0s0ltyArekDjNU AzxfKGVkQiYKhwkR658Elv7AtV9Gf/+Ercc/+dlbm+ppFLO5VWC5ObCIELoIlDm10YI2 G3ttJLN+A34oBt42hC8zjoW2GUUmlJvrIACy+ObGx80UGWaS0dKiYb0QH/OQmo2keYW6 b73QP23DKSczdsQEwXTfjJsKJI1IMlWqfScNDgvEYhN9NbahvuYAPyN8CkK7lJQZRg1M zaVQ== X-Received: by 10.180.91.49 with SMTP id cb17mr165519wib.14.1421778521041; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:41 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.106.72 with SMTP id gs8ls995371wib.40.canary; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:39 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.87.72 with SMTP id v8mr412386wiz.3.1421778519000; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-lb0-x231.google.com (mail-lb0-x231.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c04::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id oi7si1356814lbb.1.2015.01.20.10.28.38 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c04::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c04::231; Received: by mail-lb0-x231.google.com with SMTP id p9so11808234lbv.8 for ; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.152.3.70 with SMTP id a6mr22722527laa.71.1421778518873; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.70.212 with HTTP; Tue, 20 Jan 2015 10:28:38 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2015 18:28:38 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few jbovlaste entries From: And Rosta To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e014940a8911e62050d199bee 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 2a00:1450:4010:c04::231 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: 0.8 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.8 X-Spam_score_int: 8 X-Spam_bar: / X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has NOT identified this incoming email as spam. The original message has been attached to this so you can view it or label similar future email. If you have any questions, see @@CONTACT_ADDRESS@@ for details. Content preview: [moving this off llg-members list] On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:47 AM, And Rosta wrote: >> >> On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" wrote: >> > I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could >> > bring any damage to Lojban, >> >> It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since formal >> grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a >> useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of >> which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not >> really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit >> actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK >> could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be >> discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal >> grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for the >> actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might >> jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit >> deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever >> plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once >> said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously producing >> and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must have >> been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language >> faculty.) >> > Would it be fair to say that what an actual grammar should do is, given > some input of sound or written characters, tell us how to: > > (1) convert the input into a string of phonemes > (2) convert the string of phonemes into a string of words > (3) determine a tree structure for the string of words > (4) determine which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are > predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments of > which predicates > [...] Content analysis details: (0.8 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: googlegroups.com] 2.7 DNS_FROM_AHBL_RHSBL RBL: Envelope sender listed in dnsbl.ahbl.org [listed in googlegroups.com.rhsbl.ahbl.org. IN] [A] -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [74.125.82.185 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 0.0 T_HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS From and EnvelopeFrom 2nd level mail domains are different -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (and.rosta[at]gmail.com) 0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED No valid author signature, adsp_override is CUSTOM_MED 0.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid 0.0 T_FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN 2nd level domains in From and EnvelopeFrom freemail headers are different -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders --089e014940a8911e62050d199bee Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable [moving this off llg-members list] On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 9:47 AM, And Rosta wrote: >> >> On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" wrote: >> > I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could >> > bring any damage to Lojban, >> >> It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal grammar, which, since forma= l >> grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment,= a >> useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of >> which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not >> really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit >> actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK >> could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be >> discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal >> grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for = the >> actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might >> jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit >> deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not e= ver >> plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once >> said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously produc= ing >> and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must h= ave >> been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language >> faculty.) >> > Would it be fair to say that what an actual grammar should do is, given > some input of sound or written characters, tell us how to: > > (1) convert the input into a string of phonemes > (2) convert the string of phonemes into a string of words > (3) determine a tree structure for the string of words > (4) determine which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are > predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments o= f > which predicates > Rather: (1') convert the input into a string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes (2') convert the string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes into a string [or perhaps (prosodic) tree] of phonological words (3') map the tree of phonological words to a structure of syntactic 'words'/'nodes', which structure will specify which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments of which predicates > and conversely, given a list of terms and predicate relations among them, the grammar should tell us how to put all that into a string of characters or sounds such that someone else can recover the original structure of terms and their relations from it. Yes. > (In addition to that, the grammar has to say how to encode/decode illocutionary force, and maybe some other things.) As you know, I take that to be part of logicosyntactic form. > If that's more or less on track, then we can say that the YACC/EBNF formal grammars do (3). The PEG grammar does (2) and (3). Martin's tersmu is trying to do (4). I would agree that the way our formal grammars do (3) is probably not much like the way our brains do (3), but I'm not sure I see what alternative we have. Right. So I think (3) is not a valid step. (3') should be doable, partly from Tersmu and partly by using some natural language formalism to analyse the syntax (e.g. at minimum make all phrases headed and forbid unary branching; binary branching would be a bonus if it could be managed). > The way I understand what guskant's concern is, is that we should provide lojban definitions for words in such a way as to facilitate (4). Yes, I think everyone would agree with that. --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. --089e014940a8911e62050d199bee Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
[moving this off llg-members list]

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 2:59 PM, Jorge Ll= amb=C3=ADas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 20, 2015= at 9:47 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

On 20 Jan 2015 08:41, "guskant" <gusni.kantu@gmail.com> wrote:
> I still don't understand how a definition of the term "language" could
> bring any damage to Lojban,

It's because it saddles Lojban with a formal = grammar, which, since formal grammars aren't ingredients of human languages, serves as an impediment, a useless encumbrance, and lacks an explicit actual grammar, possession of which should be a sine qua non for a loglang. (To Usagists, this is not really relevant, because for them the True Grammar would be the implicit actual grammar that inheres in usage.) It's a remediable situation: BPFK could write an explicit actual grammar, and the formal grammars could be discarded as the worthless junk they are. (Not everything in the formal grammar is worthless junk, of course; some of it would be the basis for the actual grammar.) Maybe the formal grammar plus Martin's Tersmu might jointly be tantamount to an actual grammar, but the formal grammar bit deviates gratuitously from the syntax of human languages and could not ever plausibly be a model of an actual speaker's syntax. (I think Robin once said he believed he did use the formal grammar when spontaneously producing and comprehending utterances, but if that is true then I think he must have been using raw brute force brain power, rather than the human language faculty.)=C2=A0

=
Would it be fair to say that what an actual gramma= r should do is, given some input of sound or written characters, tell us ho= w to:

(1) convert the input into a string of phone= mes
(2) convert the string of phonemes into a string of words
(3) determine a tree structure for the string of words
(4)= determine which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are predicates, w= hich terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments of which predica= tes=C2=A0

Rather:

(1') convert the input into= a string [or perhaps tree] of phonemes
(2') convert the stri= ng [or perhaps tree] of phonemes into a string [or perhaps (prosodic) tre= e] of phonological words
(3') map the tree of phonological wo= rds to a structure of syntactic 'words'/'nodes', which stru= cture will specify which nodes of the tree are terms, which nodes are=20 predicates, which terms are co-referring, and which terms are arguments=20 of which predicates
=C2=A0

> and conversely, given= a list of terms and predicate relations among them, the grammar should tel= l us how to put all that into a string of characters or sounds such that so= meone else can recover the original structure of terms and their relations = from it.=C2=A0

Yes.

&= gt; (In addition to that, the grammar has to say how to encode/decode illoc= utionary force, and maybe some other things.)

As y= ou know, I take that to be part of logicosyntactic form.

=
> If that's more or less on track, then we can say th= at the YACC/EBNF formal grammars do (3). The PEG grammar does (2) and (3). = Martin's tersmu is trying to do (4). I would agree that the way our for= mal grammars do (3) is probably not much like the way our brains do (3), bu= t I'm not sure I see what alternative we have.

Right.= So I think (3) is not a valid step. (3') should be doable, partly from= Tersmu and partly by using some natural language formalism to analyse the = syntax (e.g. at minimum make all phrases headed and forbid unary branching;= binary branching would be a bonus if it could be managed).
<= br>
> The way I understand what guskant's concern is, is t= hat we should provide lojban definitions for words in such a way as to faci= litate (4).

Yes, = I think everyone would agree with that.

--And.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--089e014940a8911e62050d199bee--