Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::229;
Message-ID: <54D31D5E.6070907@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2015 07:35:58 +0000
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: [Llg-members] nu ningau so'u se jbovlaste / updating
 a few jbovlaste entries
References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <CAO1AUJPR_A0MtGUTjdTV0mYcFNY6sY12Ln0z3RPTYygdZEOodA@mail.gmail.com> <D014ACDCB5974C32A7C1D3D011A0E389@gmail.com> <CAO1AUJPBgGc44EPyuXRUvDVg=EoiGAsTENjqz=6h=Hqy6b3dMg@mail.gmail.com> <CACf3dPnND-3i=8U2y_ExH7dZZbMOFYhbvR+2o0_N+yG64m7vqw@mail.gmail.com> <CAO1AUJMKYQxqqA+ws2cjumSCyDPdFb92OH8XSWqx1v7wL8aE4Q@mail.gmail.com> <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2eRSmGaoF5a3jujdxYzrC8f0X6smpQedAxofyqR7BjqxA@mail.gmail.com> <CACf3dPke=nrnNuz8jAb6Oph+QOsec3LiffVCnejKwXYTSCnVpQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2c9tSTb6PnKgqZpTRdqP7Zu07A7s-vJP6QA8GWWObjJKQ@mail.gmail.com> <54BEE656.9090807@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2er6zTbCJUJ+OBL2mfAg_Ziio6_TfPYgRxRSfWbVVcc_A@mail.gmail.com> <54BFC0F4.1010600@gmail.com> <CAO7tK2c29phPzkuuWOezvkbS6O_4yrnC2B=kwWZUZDzfyapzGQ@mail.gmail.com> <CACf3dPkp993PNUQrKGgMONLNFHu+4k31zkohmSkeMugyJLzOVQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2dmj9a_eB22JcvD=OTW9EieGD1zbfzTASSZ6tB=QEK7bw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2dmj9a_eB22JcvD=OTW9EieGD1zbfzTASSZ6tB=QEK7bw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
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:  Jorge Llambías, On 04/02/2015 22:05: > On Wed, Feb 4, 2015
    at 12:45 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:and.rosta@gmail.com>>
    wrote: > 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). > > But how do we identify those
    sentences if not through some generating algorithm? [...] 
 
 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)
                             [209.85.217.184 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
 -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

Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas, On 04/02/2015 22:05:
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 12:45 PM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com <mailto:a=
nd.rosta@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     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 logica=
l
>     form).
>
> But how do we identify those sentences if not through some generating alg=
orithm?

Yes, through a generating algorithm. But only the output of the algorithm i=
s official, not the algorithm itself.

Also, you could decide that any superset of the official set is also eligib=
le for being decreed official.

>     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.
>
>
> Would it have to be a rule set that generates that set of pairings
> and only that set, or could it also generate new sentences? I'm not
> clear on whether you mean the initial set to be a finite sample from
> which to generalize, or the complete language.

I mean the initial set is the complete language. But a rule set that genera=
tes a superset of the complete language should still be potentially okay.

> Could you give an example of a phonological word that would
> correspond to a chunk of logical structure? Do you mean something
> like "pe" possibly being logically equivalent to "poi ke'a co'e" for
> example?

Yes. Or "ko" fusing imperativity and "do". Or "tu'a X" being "lo su'u X co'=
e" (or some indefinite counterpart of co'e).

> Would that mean that "pe" does not correspond to a syntactic word?

Yes, it would. Or, it it is an inflectional variant of "poi" before ellipse=
d "ke'a co'e".

> I don't see a problem in considering the empty phonological string as
> corresponding to a syntactic word, and in fact some of the parsers do
> exactly that in dealing with terminators. (Not sure if any parser
> does that yet in dealing with "zo'e", but then current parsers don't
> know the number of arguments that a predicate has.)

Don't brivla have infinite sumti places currently? It would take a grammar =
change to know where zo'e has to go.

> I don't think a natlang can be a set of sentences because a set is
> much too precise an object to accurately describe a natlang, which
> would have to be fuzzy.

Well, it is a fuzzy set then. (As a linguistician rather than a mathematici=
an, I tend to assume that sets are fuzzy by default.)

> In any case, I don't know what a natlang is, but I do think that a
> syntactic theory can only be a model for it and not it.

So if I, at the age of 500 after a lifetime spent diligently on this task, =
present you with a full explication of the rules of English, what is the di=
fference between English and that explication?

>     In denouncing the suitability of PEG/YACC/BNF, I was really meaning t=
o
>     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.
>
> The 1-1 correspondence would be between classes of phonological words
> and selmaho, since for example "mi" and "do" are two phonological
> words belonging to the same selmaho KOhA. The correspondence between
> phonological words and selmaho is irrelevant from the point of view
> of the "syntax" (in scare quotes), which doesn't care at all about
> phonological form. The "syntax" only works with selmaho.

Right. So technically the "syntax" is separate from the phonology. But of c=
ourse in fact the "syntax" isn't a syntax, for all it does is generate a la=
belled tree with selmaho as its leaves; it doesn't encode logical form. Fur=
thermore, since every selmaho leaf (with the possible exception of terminat=
ors) corresponds to a phonological words, the "syntax" looks like it's driv=
en by the sentence phonology.

>     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.
>
> They can only model the combinatorics and parse trees, they can't
> model things like co-referentiality.

The most important thing to model is predicate--argument and binding relati=
ons; nothing else really matters, or at least, whatever else there is simpl=
y serves the purpose of facilitating the encoding of predicate--argument an=
d binding relations.


--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.