Received: from mail-wi0-f186.google.com ([209.85.212.186]:53593) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJTlF-0003po-Fj for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:54 -0800 Received: by mail-wi0-f186.google.com with SMTP id h11sf84484wiw.3 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:46 -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=C8dhUFOHXao54CsllsB5SKbSSqy8LEft2eoJAiMen8w=; b=r359znLVajrBpDZtv48aWR1jD2EPbdyoVJ+GX1Ya3aKg25QHwzBkRmQRbNz76jOULK Gf0WEIrhvaWeapzls/FxaFMVWOXnTiu20KnjWwF5U9QSqia9pqgHmWs5Oq+JRBAh6922 o3dYpPrKmPGRGpwWu5VsHMe0A7RFHfCXFqpUu559iMA2QJllxhBepIVk1SR7vmQNoN4P Zd7dpigwq75vbiOcsgtbrmaxvQnTJhwHnv4WZaTpvlj11q/QzOjP0CLGIKkGFnUKwEpp rZWggM7U0QdaTbEHyJgtKDHlpC+uYbOjE93VWrcxA4N1Q661xu9w4xuRlw2orkrO0wwB 5ZNQ== X-Received: by 10.152.7.197 with SMTP id l5mr1980laa.8.1423170886685; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:46 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.5.38 with SMTP id p6ls237613lap.49.gmail; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:45 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.113.5.167 with SMTP id cn7mr9681lbd.21.1423170885917; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x230.google.com (mail-wi0-x230.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::230]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id nf19si32056wic.1.2015.02.05.13.14.45 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:45 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::230 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::230; Received: by mail-wi0-x230.google.com with SMTP id bs8so580444wib.3 for ; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:45 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.95.162 with SMTP id dl2mr276009wib.31.1423170885770; Thu, 05 Feb 2015 13:14:45 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.56.208 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 13:14:45 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <54D31D5E.6070907@gmail.com> References: <0CD5A578A47549238B8B046A01B8846C@gmail.com> <54BCFC70.2010805@selpahi.de> <54BE4E4F.1060204@gmail.com> <54BEE656.9090807@gmail.com> <54BFC0F4.1010600@gmail.com> <54D31D5E.6070907@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 18:14:45 -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=f46d0444e98319e63f050e5dcb39 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:c05::230 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 Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:35 AM, And Rosta wrote: > >> 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 difference between English and that explication? [...] 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) [209.85.212.186 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 -0.0 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL Mailspike good senders --f46d0444e98319e63f050e5dcb39 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:35 AM, And Rosta wrote: > >> 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 difference between English and that explication? First I'd have to know what English is, in order to compare, but it seems unlikely that English is the same as a full explication of its rules. If a zoologist presented me with a full explication of a tiger I would be able to tell it apart from the tiger immediately. I wouldn't be as scared of the explication as of the tiger. But more importantly, if someone else presented me with their own full explication of the rules of English, using different terminology and different analytic tools, I don't think it would be necessarily the case that one explication had to be better than the other, they could just be two different explications. 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 > course in fact the "syntax" isn't a syntax, for all it does is generate a > labelled tree with selmaho as its leaves; it doesn't encode logical form. Right. But the question is whether it's an aid, an impediment, or neutral in our quest to encode logical form. My impression is that it is an aid. > Furthermore, since every selmaho leaf (with the possible exception of > terminators) corresponds to a phonological words, the "syntax" looks like > it's driven by the sentence phonology. Either it's driven by, or drives it, or both. Given a phonological sentence, the "syntax" can break it apart in such a way as to facilitate the identification of the corresponding logical form. And conversely, given a logical form, the "syntax" can be used as a partial guide in the generation of an appropriate phonological form that encodes it. > The most important thing to model is predicate--argument and binding > relations; nothing else really matters, or at least, whatever else there is > simply serves the purpose of facilitating the encoding of > predicate--argument and binding relations. The "syntax" is pretty good with predicate-argument relations, but poor with binding relations. One important type of binding relation is achieved by repetition of phonological form, but the "syntax" is completely blind to phonological form (in the sense that it can't tell "da" and "de" apart). But it can tell that a given KOhA is an argument of a given BRIVLA for example. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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 email 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. --f46d0444e98319e63f050e5dcb39 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:35 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com&g= t; wrote:

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?

<= div>First I'd have to know what English is, in order to compare, but it= seems unlikely that English is the same as a full explication of its rules= .=C2=A0

If a zoologist presented me with a full ex= plication of a tiger I would be able to tell it apart from the tiger immedi= ately. I wouldn't be as scared of the explication as of the tiger. =C2= =A0

But more importantly, if someone else presente= d me with their own full explication of the rules of English, using differe= nt terminology and different analytic tools, I don't think it would be = necessarily the case that one explication had to be better than the other, = they could just be two different explications.

=C2= =A0The 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 course in fact the "syntax" isn't a syntax, for all = it does is generate a labelled tree with selmaho as its leaves; it doesn= 9;t encode logical form.

Right. But the que= stion is whether it's an aid, an impediment, or neutral in our quest to= encode logical form. My impression is that it is an aid.
=C2=A0<= /div>
Furthermore, since every selmaho leaf = (with the possible exception of terminators) corresponds to a phonological = words, the "syntax" looks like it's driven by the sentence ph= onology.

Either it's driven by, or driv= es it, or both. Given a phonological sentence, the "syntax" can b= reak it apart in such a way as to facilitate the identification of the corr= esponding logical form. And conversely, given a logical form, the "syn= tax" can be used as a partial guide in the generation of an appropriat= e phonological form that encodes it.
=C2=A0
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.

The "syntax"= is pretty good with predicate-argument relations, but poor with binding re= lations. One important type of binding relation is achieved by repetition o= f phonological form, but the "syntax" is completely blind to phon= ological form (in the sense that it can't tell "da" and "= ;de" apart). But it can tell that a given KOhA is an argument of a giv= en BRIVLA for example.

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.
--f46d0444e98319e63f050e5dcb39--