Received: from mail-la0-f59.google.com ([209.85.215.59]:37760) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YJqB0-0003uH-3P for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:59 -0800 Received: by labgq15 with SMTP id gq15sf768625lab.4 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:51 -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=gK8wUKVvsqiFmdQUXy74bbFoGoVzE6gy2Rkhk186tJY=; b=zHWj55dKpEh6oOEySixy4ecNQVUQBdT1SRrT44IPzl7VarFW2GVvLl6RcyB0QXeXnT nXEbkdcOiU4QqUxp5Kk32BJvlyLv65QaoG0RdN9nmIBV2/AwUBDPusXDuWiEKL8TgkAP pcyl29DrkDZ6vrc0DuOyB2ED1zI1QMtISDkabc6F3h/nLIhxmu4n2rpmtgs2pWWTO/D/ y6lw+dRDqj/suuf6vWAOONg/HDOmhLakBH1rOSIZShfY3YStEDimFhLI9gV68/+/X9C/ ZGc/0yD24/b4x+3jRHjbzN/hUNGPjTPYNdxDYJi41rVPBqCItMB8tek6czHDLMYNMpg4 H1wA== X-Received: by 10.181.23.198 with SMTP id ic6mr30994wid.6.1423257050994; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:50 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.74.229 with SMTP id x5ls205617wiv.8.gmail; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:50 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.180.92.133 with SMTP id cm5mr521426wib.4.1423257050526; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-wi0-x236.google.com (mail-wi0-x236.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::236]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id j3si235408wiw.0.2015.02.06.13.10.50 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::236 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::236; Received: by mail-wi0-x236.google.com with SMTP id n3so5332454wiv.3 for ; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.94.164 with SMTP id dd4mr12034320wjb.56.1423257050437; Fri, 06 Feb 2015 13:10:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.27.56.208 with HTTP; Fri, 6 Feb 2015 13:10:50 -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 18:10:50 -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=047d7bb04102ea5d15050e71da3d 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::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 Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM, And Rosta wrote: > > On 5 Feb 2015 21:14, "Jorge Llambías" wrote: > > > > 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? > Yes, but that's not saying much. I know it's not a dishwasher or a lawn mower for example. [...] 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) [209.85.215.59 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 --047d7bb04102ea5d15050e71da3d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM, And Rosta wrote: > > On 5 Feb 2015 21:14, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" wrote: > > > > 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? > Yes, but that's not saying much. I know it's not a dishwasher or a lawn mower for example. > > 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 set= s > 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 differe= nt > 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? > I can accept that the game of chess is fully described by its rules. But even for an idiolect, it doesn't seem likely that a finite set of rules would describe it, unless we define the idiolect as being just that which is described by the chosen set of rules, or unless the rules were vague enough to allow for a different set of rules to also describe it well enough.. > 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? > No, one could be a lousy explication, or even obviously wrong. > Are preferential criteria such as simplicity and knownness (by the > speaker's mind) valid? > Not sure what you mean by knownness, but sure there are many reasons why one could prefer one explication over another. > The "syntax" is pretty good with predicate-argument relations, but poor > with binding relations. One important type of binding relation is achieve= d > 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= . > Which is where Tersmu and the like come in, a set of rules for converting the phonological sentences for which we don't already have a clear idea what logical form they correspond to into ones for which we do. 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. --047d7bb04102ea5d15050e71da3d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 7:36 AM, And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com> wrote:

On 5 Feb 2015 21:14, "Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas" <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:=
>
> 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= ?

Yes, but that's not saying much. I know it's= not a dishwasher or a lawn mower for example.

> 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 explicatio= n 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 gam= e of chess different from a full explication of its rules? If Yes, is that = because there are many different possible explications, or because chess, l= ike tigers, is very different from a set of rules?

I c= an accept that the game of chess is fully described by its rules. But even = for an idiolect, it doesn't seem likely that a finite set of rules woul= d describe it, unless we define the idiolect as being just that which is de= scribed by the chosen set of rules, or unless the rules were vague enough t= o allow for a different set of rules to also describe it well enough..

> 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 bett= er than the other?

No, one could be a lousy explicatio= n, or even obviously wrong. =C2=A0

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

Not sure what you me= an by knownness, but sure there are many reasons why one could prefer one e= xplication over another.

> 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 con= verting "syntax" into syntax.

Which is where= Tersmu and the like come in, a set of rules for converting the phonologica= l sentences for which we don't already have a clear idea what logical f= orm they correspond to into ones for which we do.

= 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.
--047d7bb04102ea5d15050e71da3d--