Received: from mail-la0-f63.google.com ([209.85.215.63]:40030) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YDyY6-0002eD-Oe for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:36 -0800 Received: by mail-la0-f63.google.com with SMTP id s18sf2127772lam.8 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:27 -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=vP9O/nGAkt+FpxuM6PZu8HoRxyrRfSfo7h4NOXpsC1g=; b=gSSxJWtn+wP+hBpMAt7e7NIVbJQntOygZFo5oBwiWFaDDlKaYxjGAy51M8udb0FZn1 u9bTutMhTBn+Rj/MB5T8WSLTUpTKuH39xqR7q32BzlUHVMTfSVnIMByXPTBD28y7V2wY aJ37nclriGSD/VDy4B6XoN5X3oiYjvoafhThDcKDYh3g4NFp1vGaM4ld4QvhH8xJUnhI kGBqrj5mVI7h6TY+GDdVhLvOm3YSMmJOGKdbNRDqiPDFdC45YGK+ZgRLoIdhyiHPa3dg JRXb4UlT7Bo6U63yYb9m4Siay2PJRDm/Zy/ocdquKgYIJoHMWejpAD6WSeIKSgC/D0f4 5toQ== X-Received: by 10.152.120.226 with SMTP id lf2mr38991lab.18.1421859267139; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:27 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.8.115 with SMTP id q19ls59599laa.55.gmail; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:26 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.143.167 with SMTP id sf7mr1427649lbb.0.1421859266400; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x236.google.com (mail-wg0-x236.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gb6si459712wib.3.2015.01.21.08.54.26 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::236; Received: by mail-wg0-x236.google.com with SMTP id b13so10789978wgh.13 for ; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.20.67 with SMTP id l3mr76157188wje.94.1421859266242; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:26 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.56.208 with HTTP; Wed, 21 Jan 2015 08:54:26 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54BFC0F4.1010600@gmail.com> References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCF147.1080803@lojban.org> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> <54BEE656.9090807@gmail.com> <54BFC0F4.1010600@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2015 13:54:26 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few jbovlaste entries From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b5d649a7c2d00050d2c68cc X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::236 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llambías, On 21/01/2015 12:33: >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > > Step (3') yields something like Tersmu output, probably augmented by >> some purely syntactic (i.e. without logical import) structure. I think that >> can and should be done without reference to the formal grammars. >> >> But Tersmu output is basically FOPL, which has its own formal grammar >> (on which Lojban's formal grammar is based). I still don't see what >> problems formal grammars create. >> > > (3') must certainly involve a grammar, and I can't think of any sense in > which a grammar could meaningfully be called 'informal', so I'm happy to > call that grammar 'formal'. But it differs from the CS (or at least the > Lojban) notion primarily in not having phonological objects as any of its > nodes and secondarily in not necessarily being simply a labelled bracketing > of a string. [...] 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_H2 RBL: Average reputation (+2) [209.85.215.63 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 (jjllambias[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 --047d7b5d649a7c2d00050d2c68cc Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM, And Rosta wrote: > Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 21/01/2015 12:33: >> >> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta > and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > > Step (3') yields something like Tersmu output, probably augmented by >> some purely syntactic (i.e. without logical import) structure. I think t= hat >> can and should be done without reference to the formal grammars. >> >> But Tersmu output is basically FOPL, which has its own formal grammar >> (on which Lojban's formal grammar is based). I still don't see what >> problems formal grammars create. >> > > (3') must certainly involve a grammar, and I can't think of any sense in > which a grammar could meaningfully be called 'informal', so I'm happy to > call that grammar 'formal'. But it differs from the CS (or at least the > Lojban) notion primarily in not having phonological objects as any of its > nodes and secondarily in not necessarily being simply a labelled bracketi= ng > of a string. I don't understand your primary objection because the syntactic tree generated by the Lojban formal grammars doesn't rely on its terminal nodes being phonological objects. The terminal nodes of the syntax part of the grammar are the selma'o. It just happens that these can be mapped in a trivial way to the output of the morphology, but that's not important. One could implement a completely different morphology and mount the same Lojban syntax on that. The only requirement for the syntax is that each syntactic word be a member of one of the selma'o. The secondary objection I accept, but that's why I had (4), to complement the labelled bracketing generated by (3). That's what Martin's Tersmu is meant to do, because as I understand it it doesn't start from scratch with just a string of syntactic words, it starts from the output of (3). To the extent that Lojban is a language, (3) doesn't really constitute any > part of Lojban (despite the mistaken belief of many Lojbanists to the > contrary). Also, to the extent that Lojban is a language, there exists an > implicit version of (3'), albeit not necessarily one that is coherent or > unambiguous. So I would recommend removing the current Formal Grammars fr= om > the definition of Lojban, and replacing them by one -- an explicit (3') -= - > that more credibly represents actual human language (but is unambiguous > etc.). > The only problem with that is that we don't have anyone else besides yourself competent enough to give an explicit (3'). I wouldn't even know what (3') has to look like. We can only do what we know how to do. > Also questionable is the extent to which a nonterminal node can have > properties/labels not simply derived from the label of the head daughter: > the range of views among syntacticians is too hard to summarize in one > sentence here, but certainly one does not come across syntactic trees for > natlang sentences with a pattern of labellings resembling Lojban's, i.e. > where the relationship between labels on the mother and the daughters is > unconstrained. I certainly don't want to claim that Lojban's syntactic trees are naturalistic. Let's say that they are to a natlang tree as Frankenstein is to a human. Unary branches don't do >> anything useful, but are they harmful other than in cluttering the >> tree with superfluous nodes? >> > > They're harmless clutter if there's no contrast with a version of the tre= e > where mother and singleton daughter merge into the same node. You need to > consider the branching issue together with the labelling issue. If mother > and head-daughter have the same label, then the redundancy of unary > branching is plain. That's why Lojban parsers usually throw away a lot of the output provided by the formal grammar, and keep only the labels of key nodes for presentation purposes. Ok, but in Lojban there's almost a one-to-one match between >> phonological and syntactic words. >> > > That remains to be seen, because there isn't yet an explicit real syntax > for Lojban. However, it's perfectly possible that in Lojban, > phonology--syntax mismatches are rare. > The only mismatch I'm aware of is "ybu", which is treated as a syntactic word even though phonologically it would break down into the hesitation "y" and the phonological word "bu". I'm not sure if choosing a simple Lojban example is going to reveal why you > can't have beliefs about binary branching in natlangs. What I meant to say is that I can't see a syntax as an intrinsic feature of a natlang, as opposed to being just a model, which can be a better or worse fit, but it can never be the language. So I can accept that binary branching syntaxes are more elegant, more perspicuous, etc, I just can't believe they are a feature of the language, just like the description of a house is not a feature of the house. Maybe that's just me not being a linguist. > Syntax is a set of rules for combining the combinatorial units of syntax > in ways that are combinatorially licit and that combine the units' > phonological forms and their meanings. I suspect (but excuse me if I'm > mistaken) that for you every set of rules that defines the correct set of > sentences is equally valid, so that so long as the rules match the right > sentence sounds to the right sentence meanings, it doesn't matter what th= e > intermediate structure is like; if the syntactician has a job, it is to > work out *a* set of rules, but there is no reason to think there is only > one correct set of rules. In contrast, pretty much all linguisticians thi= nk > (but not always for the same reasons) that of the sets of rules that > generate the same, correct, set of sentences, some of those sets are righ= t > and some are wrong or at least some are righter and some are wronger > That sounds reasonable. > . In my case I think the rules matter because (i) to understand the syste= m > you need to understand its internal mechanics, and (ii) a speaker knows a > certain set of rules. and it's known-rules that are my object of study. Yes, but can't those rules, or rather a part of those rules, be presented as a CS type grammar? I understand that the Lojban formal grammars as they are are something of a monstrosity, but what if they were cleaned up and made more human compatible? You seem to be saying that the very idea of a PEG/YACC/BNF type grammar is counter to a proper grammar, not just the particular poor choices made for the Lojban grammar. mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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. --047d7b5d649a7c2d00050d2c68cc Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:
Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On = 21/01/2015 12:33:
On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>&g= t; wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Step (3') yields something like Tersmu output, probably a= ugmented by some purely syntactic (i.e. without logical import) structure. = I think that can and should be done without reference to the formal grammar= s.

But Tersmu output is basically FOPL, which has its own formal grammar
(on which Lojban's formal grammar is based). I still don't see what=
problems formal grammars create.

 (3') must certainly involve a grammar, and I can't think of any sen= se in which a grammar could meaningfully be called 'informal', so I= 'm happy to call that grammar 'formal'. But it differs from the= CS (or at least the Lojban) notion primarily in not having phonological ob= jects as any of its nodes and secondarily in not necessarily being simply a= labelled bracketing of a string.

I don'= ;t understand your primary objection because the syntactic tree generated b= y the Lojban formal grammars doesn't rely on its terminal nodes being p= honological objects. The terminal nodes of the syntax part of the grammar a= re the selma'o. It just happens that these can be mapped in a trivial w= ay to the output of the morphology, but that's not important. One could= implement a completely different morphology and mount the same Lojban synt= ax on that. The only requirement for the syntax is that each syntactic word= be a member of one of the selma'o.

The second= ary objection I accept, but that's why I had (4), to complement the lab= elled bracketing generated by (3). That's what Martin's Tersmu is m= eant to do, because as I understand it it doesn't start from scratch wi= th just a string of syntactic words, it starts from the output of (3).

To the extent that Lojban is a language, (3) doesn't really constitute = any part of Lojban (despite the mistaken belief of many Lojbanists to the c= ontrary). Also, to the extent that Lojban is a language, there exists an im= plicit version of (3'), albeit not necessarily one that is coherent or = unambiguous. So I would recommend removing the current Formal Grammars from= the definition of Lojban, and replacing them by one -- an explicit (3'= ) -- that more credibly represents actual human language (but is unambiguou= s etc.).

The only problem with that is = that we don't have anyone else besides yourself competent enough to giv= e an explicit (3'). I wouldn't even know what (3') has to look = like. We can only do what we know how to do.=C2=A0
=C2=A0=C2=A0
=C2=A0Also questionable is the extent to= which a nonterminal node can have properties/labels not simply derived fro= m the label of the head daughter: the range of views among syntacticians is= too hard to summarize in one sentence here, but certainly one does not com= e across syntactic trees for natlang sentences with a pattern of labellings= resembling Lojban's, i.e. where the relationship between labels on the= mother and the daughters is unconstrained.

I certainly don't want to claim that Lojban's syntactic trees are = naturalistic. Let's say that they are to a natlang tree as Frankenstein= is to a human.

Unary branches don't do
anything useful, but are they harmful other than in cluttering the
tree with superfluous nodes?

 They're harmless clutter if there's no contrast with a version of t= he tree where mother and singleton daughter merge into the same node. You n= eed to consider the branching issue together with the labelling issue. If m= other and head-daughter have the same label, then the redundancy of unary b= ranching is plain.

That's why Lojban pa= rsers usually throw away a lot of the output provided by the formal grammar= , and keep only the labels of key nodes for presentation purposes.

Ok, but in Lojban there's almost a one-to-one match bet= ween
phonological and syntactic words.

 That remains to be seen, because there isn't yet an explicit real synta= x for Lojban. However, it's perfectly possible that in Lojban, phonolog= y--syntax mismatches are rare.

The only= mismatch I'm aware of is "ybu", which is treated as a syntac= tic word even though phonologically it would break down into the hesitation= "y" and the phonological word "bu".=C2=A0
I'm not sure if choosing a simple Lojban example is going to reveal why= you can't have beliefs about binary branching in natlangs.

What I meant to say is that I can't see a syntax = as an intrinsic feature of a natlang, as opposed to being just a model, whi= ch can be a better or worse fit, but it can never be the language. So I can= accept that binary branching syntaxes are more elegant, more perspicuous, = etc, I just can't believe they are a feature of the language, just like= the description of a house is not a feature of the house. Maybe that's= just me not being a linguist.
=C2=A0
Syntax is a set of rules for combining the combinatorial units of = syntax in ways that are combinatorially licit and that combine the units= 9; phonological forms and their meanings. I suspect (but excuse me if I'= ;m mistaken) that for you every set of rules that defines the correct set o= f sentences is equally valid, so that so long as the rules match the right = sentence sounds to the right sentence meanings, it doesn't matter what = the intermediate structure is like; if the syntactician has a job, it is to= work out *a* set of rules, but there is no reason to think there is only o= ne correct set of rules. In contrast, pretty much all linguisticians think = (but not always for the same reasons) that of the sets of rules that genera= te the same, correct, set of sentences, some of those sets are right and so= me are wrong or at least some are righter and some are wronger

That sounds reasonable.
=C2=A0
. In my case I think the rules matter because (i) to understand the system = you need to understand its internal mechanics, and (ii) a speaker knows a c= ertain set of rules. and it's known-rules that are my object of study.<= /blockquote>

Yes, but can't those rules, or rather a= part of those rules, be presented as a CS type grammar? I understand that = the Lojban formal grammars as they are are something of a monstrosity, but = what if they were cleaned up and made more human compatible? You seem to be= saying that the very idea of a PEG/YACC/BNF type grammar is counter to a p= roper grammar, not just the particular poor choices made for the Lojban gra= mmar.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--
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.
--047d7b5d649a7c2d00050d2c68cc--