Received: from mail-wg0-f55.google.com ([74.125.82.55]:37991) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJgHK-0001Jq-7f for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:51 -0800 Received: by mail-wg0-f55.google.com with SMTP id a1sf1679067wgh.0 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:43 -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=ZO+7Pzml9yxD3/yRPTVAu+KFMprM2pb0vaIIctbFfgU=; b=N6TNnQRHOuVsnveAT9CSA/PWg3KchMAZKxfM1g6q0kzLNLPiFGl+dpFJ2VvCXfDjkv 1UQjkisuT++QFDRw1KxMM0vKQgC2ZwMTESfsr5stdSvEkjc6TAb926vDl58c+fGiPGJq noa/Q458XHBIRKaRttTi4tZ0bPZKbt3TtYwyLaDd9BV2WVi6oV8Ip3nWbehFJzyNfWEC j06loakEcDJWmm9zNQerZngjTqCXOZTxSxlnNLTYYp0zrSRjQ2uIVKdZ9+ovGoYVqAa6 fSqO1KyrKT/84DwE/ZGKEwowFrPEtLiZ+ctAqw7+LipDR+3wBBBFAmwlyYuuB2ApDNeK AifQ== X-Received: by 10.152.27.135 with SMTP id t7mr22713lag.36.1423219003336; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:43 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.42.234 with SMTP id r10ls246928lal.94.gmail; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.112.154.233 with SMTP id vr9mr352245lbb.9.1423219002506; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wg0-x231.google.com (mail-wg0-x231.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::231]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cl5si57987wib.3.2015.02.06.02.36.42 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::231; Received: by mail-wg0-x231.google.com with SMTP id k14so12652508wgh.8 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.61.65 with SMTP id n1mr6252811wjr.53.1423219002353; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.132.70 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 02:36:42 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: 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: Fri, 6 Feb 2015 10:36:42 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [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=047d7b86d574130939050e68ffed 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 2a00:1450:400c:c00::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: On 5 Feb 2015 21:14, "Jorge Llambías" wrote: > > > > 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, [...] 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 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 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 RBL: Good reputation (+3) [74.125.82.55 listed in wl.mailspike.net] 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 --047d7b86d574130939050e68ffed Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 5 Feb 2015 21:14, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wrote: > > > > 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, So although you're not sure what it is, you have an idea of what it is that is good enough for you to know what it isn't? > but it seems unlikely that English is the same as a full explication of its rules. How about if English is the same as a full explication of a family of sets of rules, one set per idiolect? Or you feel that even an idiolect is not the same as a full explication of its rules? Is the game of chess different from a full explication of its rules? If Yes, is that because there are many different possible explications, or because chess, like tigers, is very different from a set of 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. This is easy to explain, for tigers are material and bite, whereas, like language, explications are abstract, immaterial and don't bite. > > 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. Would it necessarily be the case that neither is better than the other? Are preferential criteria such as simplicity and knownness (by the speaker's mind) valid? >> 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. I don't disagree with that; I've noted already that although the "syntax" isn't a syntax, much of it could be recycled into an actual syntax. >> 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. Yes. The important point is that it's not first and foremost driven by the requirement that it should encode logical form; though, it is of course the case that the "syntax" has also been shaped by the idea that in some cloudily understood way it should contribute to the encoding of logical form, hence the pretty good job it does with the (very easy) task of encoding predicate--argument 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. That's where you'd start with the work of converting "syntax" into syntax. --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. --047d7b86d574130939050e68ffed Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 5 Feb 2015 21:14, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 4:35 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> So if I, at the age of 500 after a lifetime spent diligently on th= is 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,

So although you're not sure what it is, you have an idea= of what it is that is good enough for you to know what it isn't?

> but it seems unlikely that English is the same as a ful= l explication of its rules.=C2=A0

How about if English is the same as a full explication of a = family of sets of rules, one set per idiolect? Or you feel that even an idi= olect is not the same as a full explication of its rules? Is the game of ch= ess different from a full explication of its rules? If Yes, is that because= there are many different possible explications, or because chess, like tig= ers, is very different from a set of 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 woul= dn't be as scared of the explication as of the tiger. =C2=A0

This is easy to explain, for tigers are material and bite, w= hereas, like language, explications are abstract, immaterial and don't = bite.

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

Would it necessarily be the case that neither is better than= the other?

Are preferential criteria such as simplicity and knownness (= by the speaker's mind) valid?

>>=C2=A0 So technically the "syntax" is sepa= rate from the phonology. But of course in fact the "syntax" isn&#= 39;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.

I don't disagree with that; I've noted already that = although the "syntax" isn't a syntax, much of it could be rec= ycled into an actual syntax.

>> Furthermore, since every selmaho leaf (with the pos= sible exception of terminators) corresponds to a phonological words, the &q= uot;syntax" looks like it's driven by the sentence phonology.
>
>
> Either it's driven by, or drives it, or both.

Yes. The important point is that it's not first and fore= most driven by the requirement that it should encode logical form; though, = it is of course the case that the "syntax" has also been shaped b= y the idea that in some cloudily understood way it should contribute to the= encoding of logical form, hence the pretty good job it does with the (very= easy) task of encoding predicate--argument relations.


> The "syntax" is pretty good with predicate-argument relation= s, 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 te= ll "da" and "de" apart). But it can tell that a given K= OhA is an argument of a given BRIVLA for example.

That's where you'd start with the work of converting= "syntax" into syntax.

--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.
--047d7b86d574130939050e68ffed--