Received: from mail-ob0-f188.google.com ([209.85.214.188]:39369) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJ31J-0007sl-B5 for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:41:42 -0800 Received: by mail-ob0-f188.google.com with SMTP id uy5sf607697obc.5 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:41:35 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:reply-to:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject :mime-version:content-type:content-length:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=gyboRKfmHk0/a7NtBVjSbkzD+JVlBMVtEJjyVO7WzAc=; b=La/ZUqXap4uQKs+dsqFR0QT5bOSwfixiSPOdekyFuQCbJJru/bMtwx36n+vLuKB1wl oyzj7Iu2S8SCHQLiBcTIC3ZjHiEA3xraPsOnP8Dl5fZ/MaVgHQKmmHzK31DXdgCe+lt+ 6spa4cNdUBUSmNjusGDacoBgQepkehqar37EbgfKJHQ4SFEXsXrjYH2rrL/fSaVDbFx0 A9Kn22An02C73q2OuuZ3fftdqq/BtqiRKKt5SRTjlAOUGL+ekbI4OBMG/4L2thob7QMo T3p4foaLYcPPOYKtqLAvkpwZZe5irp1G8hK0UG7sJJoM4+9+JBfKZrOGminxhg9b+JRP jE4w== X-Received: by 10.50.50.142 with SMTP id c14mr378626igo.13.1423068094375; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:41:34 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.3.162 with SMTP id e34ls161856ioi.70.gmail; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:41:34 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.136.43 with SMTP id px11mr27448555pab.38.1423068094002; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:41:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from nm10-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com (nm10-vm2.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com. [98.138.90.158]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id u2si245816igh.0.2015.02.04.08.41.33 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 08:41:33 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.158 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.138.90.158; Received: from [98.138.100.117] by nm10.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 16:41:33 -0000 Received: from [98.138.89.248] by tm108.bullet.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 16:41:33 -0000 Received: from [127.0.0.1] by omp1040.mail.ne1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 04 Feb 2015 16:41:33 -0000 X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: ymail-3 X-Yahoo-Newman-Id: 422859.46559.bm@omp1040.mail.ne1.yahoo.com X-YMail-OSG: XG1DCEwVM1lBX7OdbqvfGVt0RS_OCw9aE.7HdM6Yxw7hDGY.R38ilP7hbfbe.Py OeIqFOty1scTE3pvvLf3yg08nCDAVthHu6SivisksIe8_P.ZP4rn2Vx9UyoWDvLYBp.eMa98Tppo 6W0.MZHaAXFnXjWFfxQ6MC6rMf1TYDqt4gnX5RPNeQnKHeApk4r_qrJNEMRtyM.MDjycLsuUSakk BFT3yyZ3CiuPKZl04zOFMRHEQCHdeajtq_UGjlL9minBvFrBImlHbH.wIitZYP_32pU3H6qJFGSF hmS5fZlpYHhNtYpDUPNoIzAOiSPvZDEehLjKKWW988Uw5qJRBOak_jOc3td9zAnpbQsRiH.xXyjM U9mzEM5vtVmhf6.GumzR7NmGp9cKH7uYQX1R.OJeEBxrXp7NPFwJlnK6Fr.lxpVpF51xLZVn4ZsT RUTJWdO8RdGoz1IpNXYEIMdrvUgTOs6BzoBQyxDKBYsRetsolduFiN2vqOFXd_CQ0TYuCVCb0O_J M2f8cTAyeq_iWzGiFZuAiB.n2oYnntcqBngpaWtoqyXmhZJbSdfM7_R.Ll8BrAnw5EbD71IxMsSG b1Stf1t3gxVM9RJtqtPshhnUQ5N0Gb1UD1IkE_1kIqI3oOpgmfnOY6SlVoK.Xe083dWaIU4.x5be 5_ecsdDiyHCyGBGmCgaY5C3jqPyw- Received: by 98.138.105.245; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 16:41:32 +0000 Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2015 16:41:32 +0000 (UTC) From: "'John E Clifford' via lojban" Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Message-ID: <1945387527.1339604.1423068092537.JavaMail.yahoo@mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating a few jbovlaste entries MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1339603_1389226067.1423068092528" Content-Length: 26608 X-Original-Sender: kali9putra@yahoo.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.138.90.158 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=kali9putra@yahoo.com; dkim=pass header.i=@yahoo.com; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=yahoo.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-Original-From: John E Clifford X-Spam-Score: 0.7 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.7 X-Spam_score_int: 7 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: As a minor practical suggestion, I note that starting from the logicl form and working back to the phonological realization is, in one repect easier than 'tother way 'round, since you have a certainty for a start.  Of course, you then have a variety of ways that things can go, since one form gives rise to a large number of different phonological strings.  But  each difference is achieved (ideally) in a unique way and a suitable grammar will require marks for exactly those unique steps and no others, for a significant net savings compared to the present systems (it seems to me, who am often annoyed by what seem to be irrelevant requirements put in because they ae useful somewhere sometime). [...] Content analysis details: (0.7 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) [209.85.214.188 listed in wl.mailspike.net] -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 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_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders ------=_Part_1339603_1389226067.1423068092528 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable As a minor practical suggestion, I note that starting from the logicl form = and working back to the phonological realization is, in one repect easier t= han 'tother way 'round, since you have a certainty for a start. =C2=A0Of co= urse, you then have a variety of ways that things can go, since one form gi= ves rise to a large number of different phonological strings. =C2=A0But =C2= =A0each difference is achieved (ideally) in a unique way and a suitable gra= mmar will require marks for exactly those unique steps and no others, for a= significant net savings compared to the present systems (it seems to me, w= ho am often annoyed by what seem to be irrelevant requirements put in becau= se they ae useful somewhere sometime).=20 On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 9:57 AM, And Rosta wrote: =20 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 21/01/2015 16:54: > > On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 PM, And Rosta > wrote: > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 21/01/2015 12:33: > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta >> wrote: > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Step (3') yields somethin= g like Tersmu output, probably augmented by some purely syntactic (i.e. wit= hout logical import) structure. I think that can and should be done without= reference to the formal grammars. > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 But Tersmu output is basically FOPL, which has= its own formal grammar >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 (on which Lojban's formal grammar is based). I= still don't see what >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 problems formal grammars create. > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 (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 le= ast the Lojban) notion primarily in not having phonological objects as any = of its nodes and secondarily in not necessarily being simply a labelled bra= cketing 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. My primary objection is not so much the phonologicality of the terminal nodes as their nonsyntacticality: if they were syntactic then they would contain logical structure, and ellipsed elements. > 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). Well, I've already said that even tho the 'Formal Grammar' must be discarded, it can still be recycled into the actual grammar. Building the actual grammar simply by bolting together the Formal Grammar and Tersmu isn't going to resemble anything whose innards resemble human language, but at least it would be functionally equivalent to a human language syntax module. >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 To the extent that Lojban is a language, (3) doesn't really = constitute any part of Lojban (despite the mistaken belief of many Lojbanis= ts to the contrary). Also, to the extent that Lojban is a language, there e= xists an implicit version of (3'), albeit not necessarily one that is coher= ent or unambiguous. So I would recommend removing the current Formal Gramma= rs from the definition of Lojban, and replacing them by one -- an explicit = (3') -- that more credibly represents actual human language (but is unambig= uous 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. Even if this is true, the goal of formulating an explicit (3') is surely one the community should have, even if unable to achieve it yet. But starting to tackle (3') is not so daunting: Step 1: What is the least clunky way of getting unambiguously from phonological words to logical form -- from the phonological words of Lojban sentences to the logical forms of Lojban sentences (with the notion of Lojban sentence defined by usage or consensus)? Any loglanger could have a stab at tackling this. Step 2: Identify any devices that are absent from natlangs. Step 3: Redo Step 1, without using devices identified in Step 2. Reflecting on this further, during the couple of weeks it's taken for me to find the time to finish this reply, I would suggest that *official*, *definitional* specification of the grammar consist only of a set of sentences defined as pairings of phonological and logical forms (ideally, consistent with the 'monoparsing' precept that to every phonological form there must correspond no more than one logical form). Then, any rule set that generates that set of pairings would be deemed to count as a valid grammar of Lojban, and then from among the valid grammars we could seek the one(s) that are closest to those internalized by human speakers. >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Ok, but in Lojban there's almost a one-to-one = match between >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 phonological and syntactic words. > > >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 That remains to be seen, because there isn't yet an explicit= real syntax for Lojban. However, it's perfectly possible that in Lojban, p= honology--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". We currently don't have a clear idea of what syntactic words Lojban has, where by "syntactic word" I mean ingredients of logicosyntactic form, the form that encodes logical structure. Some phonological words seem to correspond to chunks of logical structure rather than single nodes, and there will be instances of nodes in logical structure that don't correspond to anything in phonology (-- the most obvious example is ellipsis, which Lojban sensibly makes heavy use of). >=C2=A0 =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, which can be a better or wo= rse fit, but it can never be the language. Are holding for natlangs the view that I propose above for Lojban, namely that a language is a set of sentences, i.e. form--meaning correspondences, and although in practice there must be some system for generating that set, it doesn't matter what the system is, so long as it generates the right set, and therefore in that sense the system is not intrinsic to language? If Yes, I don't agree, but I think the position is coherent enough that I won't try to dissuade you from it. If not, do explain again what you mean. > So I can accept that binary branching syntaxes are more elegant, more per= spicuous, etc, I just can't believe they are a feature of the language, jus= t like the description of a house is not a feature of the house. Maybe that= 's just me not being a linguist. But could a description of an architectural plan of a house be an architectural plan of a house? Could a comprehensive explcit description of a code be a code? Surely yes, and the same for language. >=C2=A0 =C2=A0 . In my case I think the rules matter because (i) to underst= and the system you need to understand its internal mechanics, and (ii) a sp= eaker 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 m= ade more human compatible? You seem to be saying that the very idea of a PE= G/YACC/BNF type grammar is counter to a proper grammar, not just the partic= ular poor choices made for the Lojban grammar. I don't know how suitable PEG/YACC/BNF are for natlangs. I must ruefully confess I know nothing about PEG, despite all the work you've done with it. AFAIK linguists in the last half century haven't found BNF necessary or sufficient for their rules, but my meagre knowledge doesn't extend to knowing the mathematical properties of BNF and other actually used formalisms, and the relationships between them. In denouncing the suitability of PEG/YACC/BNF, I was really meaning to denounce treating phonological stuff (e.g. phonological words) as constituents of terminal nodes in syntactic structures. You said that terminal nodes are actually selmaho and (iirc?) that the 1--1 correspondence between phonological words and selmaho terminal nodes is not essential. So in that case my objection would not be to CS grammars per se but only to the idea that a CS grammar can model a whole grammar rather than just, say, the combinatorics of syntax. So I reserve judgement on PEG et al: if they can represent logicosyntactic structure in full, then they have my blessing. --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. =20 --=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. ------=_Part_1339603_1389226067.1423068092528 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
As a minor practical suggestion, = I note that starting from the logicl form and working back to the phonologi= cal realization is, in one repect easier than 'tother way 'round, since you= have a certainty for a start.  Of course, you then have a variety of = ways that things can go, since one form gives rise to a large number of dif= ferent phonological strings.  But  each difference is achieved (i= deally) in a unique way and a suitable grammar will require marks for exact= ly those unique steps and no others, for a significant net savings compared= to the present systems (it seems to me, who am often annoyed by what seem = to be irrelevant requirements put in because they ae useful somewhere somet= ime).


On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 9:57 AM= , And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:


=
Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 21/01/2015 16:54:>
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2015 at 12:08 = PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
>=
>    Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 21/01/2015 12= :33:
>
>      &nbs= p; On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 8:35 PM, And Rosta <and.ro= sta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com> = <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>> wrote:
>>
>        &nbs= p;     Step (3') yields something like Tersmu output, probably au= gmented 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 gr= ammar is based). I still don't see what
>   =     problems formal grammars create.
>
>
>    (3') must certainl= y involve a grammar, and I can't think of any sense in which a grammar coul= d meaningfully be called 'informal', so I'm happy to call that grammar 'for= mal'. 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 n= ot necessarily being simply a labelled bracketing of a string.
>
>
> I don't understand= your primary objection because the syntactic tree
> g= enerated 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 t= o the output of the morphology, but
> that's not impor= tant. One could implement a completely different
> mor= phology and mount the same Lojban syntax on that. The only
> requirement for the syntax is that each syntactic word be a member o= f
> one of the selma'o.

My primary objection is not so much the phonologicality of the
terminal nodes as their nonsyntacticality: if they were syntac= tic then
they would contain logical structure, and ellips= ed elements.

> The secondary object= ion I accept, but that's why I had (4), to
> complemen= t the labelled bracketing generated by (3). That's what
&= gt; Martin's Tersmu is meant to do, because as I understand it it doesn't> start from scratch with just a string of syntactic wo= rds, it starts
> from the output of (3).

Well, I've already said that even tho the 'Formal G= rammar' must be
discarded, it can still be recycled into = the actual grammar. Building
the actual grammar simply by= bolting together the Formal Grammar and
Tersmu isn't goi= ng to resemble anything whose innards resemble human
lang= uage, but at least it would be functionally equivalent to a human
language syntax module.

>=     To the extent that Lojban is a language, (3) doesn't really = constitute any part of Lojban (despite the mistaken belief of many Lojbanis= ts to the contrary). Also, to the extent that Lojban is a language, there e= xists an implicit version of (3'), albeit not necessarily one that is coher= ent or unambiguous. So I would recommend removing the current Formal Gramma= rs from the definition of Lojban, and replacing them by one -- an explicit = (3') -- that more credibly represents actual human language (but is unambig= uous 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 kno= w how to
> do.

Ev= en if this is true, the goal of formulating an explicit (3') is
surely one the community should have, even if unable to achieve ityet.

But starting to = tackle (3') is not so daunting:
Step 1: What is the least= clunky way of getting unambiguously from
phonological wo= rds to logical form -- from the phonological words of
Loj= ban sentences to the logical forms of Lojban sentences (with the
notion of Lojban sentence defined by usage or consensus)? Any
loglanger could have a stab at tackling this.
Step 2: Identify any devices that are absent from natlangs.
Step 3: Redo Step 1, without using devices identified in Step 2.


Reflecting on this fur= ther, during the couple of weeks it's taken for
me to fin= d the time to finish this reply, I would suggest that
*of= ficial*, *definitional* specification of the grammar consist only
of a set of sentences defined as pairings of phonological and log= ical
forms (ideally, consistent with the 'monoparsing' pr= ecept that to
every phonological form there must correspo= nd no more than one logical
form). Then, any rule set tha= t generates that set of pairings would be
deemed to count= as a valid grammar of Lojban, and then from among the
va= lid grammars we could seek the one(s) that are closest to those
internalized by human speakers.



>        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 fo= r Lojban. However, it's perfectly possible that in Lojban, phonology--synta= x 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".

We currently don't have a clear idea of what syntactic words Lojb= an
has, where by "syntactic word" I mean ingredients of l= ogicosyntactic
form, the form that encodes logical struct= ure. Some phonological words
seem to correspond to chunks= of logical structure rather than single
nodes, and there= will be instances of nodes in logical structure that
don= 't correspond to anything in phonology (-- the most obvious example
is ellipsis, which Lojban sensibly makes heavy use of).

>    I'm not sure if choosing a = simple Lojban example is going to reveal why you can't have beliefs about b= inary branching in natlangs.
>
><= br clear=3D"none">> 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.

Are holding for natlangs the view that I propose = above for Lojban,
namely that a language is a set of sent= ences, i.e. form--meaning
correspondences, and although i= n practice there must be some system
for generating that = set, it doesn't matter what the system is, so long
as it = generates the right set, and therefore in that sense the system
is not intrinsic to language?

I= f Yes, I don't agree, but I think the position is coherent enough
that I won't try to dissuade you from it.

If not, do explain again what you mean.
> So I can accept that binary branching syntaxes are mor= e elegant, more perspicuous, etc, I just can't believe they are a feature o= f the language, just like the description of a house is not a feature of th= e house. Maybe that's just me not being a linguist.

But could a description of an architectural plan of a house b= e an
architectural plan of a house? Could a comprehensive= explcit
description of a code be a code? Surely yes, and= the same for
language.

>    . 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 certain set of rules. and it's known-rules that are m= y 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 gra= mmars as they are are something of a monstrosity, but what if they were cle= aned 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 ju= st the particular poor choices made for the Lojban grammar.

I don't know how suitable PEG/YACC/BNF are for natlan= gs. I must
ruefully confess I know nothing about PEG, des= pite all the work you've
done with it. AFAIK linguists in= the last half century haven't found
BNF necessary or suf= ficient for their rules, but my meagre knowledge
doesn't = extend to knowing the mathematical properties of BNF and other
actually used formalisms, and the relationships between them.

In denouncing the suitability of PEG/YACC/BNF= , I was really meaning to
denounce treating phonological = stuff (e.g. phonological words) as
constituents of termin= al nodes in syntactic structures. You said that
terminal = nodes are actually selmaho and (iirc?) that the 1--1
corr= espondence between phonological words and selmaho terminal nodes
is not essential. So in that case my objection would not be to CS=
grammars per se but only to the idea that a CS grammar c= an model a
whole grammar rather than just, say, the combi= natorics of syntax. So I
reserve judgement on PEG et al: = if they can represent logicosyntactic
structure in full, = then they have my blessing.
<= br clear=3D"none">
--And.

--
You received this message because you are subsc= ribed 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 ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, vi= sit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


=

--
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.
------=_Part_1339603_1389226067.1423068092528--