Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 00:33:44 -0700 (PDT)
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <b1628c0f-f40b-4f65-90b2-594dbfee1652@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <86tv181vbz.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
References: <86zhbyh1om.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <54430312-17f8-bbcc-eb95-c6f3aedfc046@gmail.com>
 <868sjeoga3.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <d7fc972d-696c-2e77-5e24-af41830645ef@lojban.org>
 <86k12m7ohg.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <33fb11ad-6aa7-47be-adc5-049d9f6670a9@googlegroups.com>
 <86o8rvbdd1.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <331e6b40-73bc-4597-bccd-2e7b1028cba7@googlegroups.com>
 <867dyikkxw.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
 <693d3c80-9001-0a4d-051a-dfee64f8a984@lojban.org>
 <86tv181vbz.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Where is the latest/official PEG grammar?
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_924_1080428249.1587800024995"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.6
X-Spam_score_int: -25
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_924_1080428249.1587800024995
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_925_515807329.1587800024995"

------=_Part_925_515807329.1587800024995
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Em s=C3=A1bado, 25 de abril de 2020 02:11:28 UTC+3,=20
scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org escreveu:
>
> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:=20
>
> > On 4/14/2020 1:59 PM, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote:=20
> >> Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> writes:=20
>
> >> None of what you have writen here makes any sense to me.  What do you=
=20
> >> mean?=20
> >=20
> > As I said in my other answer (which I seem to have been sending only=20
> > to you and not to the list, so I will continue that way), the official=
=20
>
> Hm.  That reply of mine wasn't address to you, it was addressed to Gleki=
=20
> Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>.=20
>
> >> yet we still don't have a complete grammar=20
> >=20
> > The official YACC grammar in CLL is considered complete.=20
>
> I realize that the YACC is "considered" authoritative, but it is not=20
> complete.  For starters, it requires a separate lexer.  Neither the=20
> lexer nor parser are usable unless you're in an environment where you=20
> can run code written in C.  And, if you do get them to run, the results=
=20
> are not correct.  Neither elidable terminators nor magic words are=20
> handled correctly, and there is no formal specification (just narrative=
=20
> descriptions in the CLL) for how they should work.  For example, I have=
=20
> yet to see a parser which handles SA correctly.=20
>
> > I don't understand any PEG grammar; it is gobbledygook to me.=20
>
> PEG is fairly straightforward.  You just have to learn the operators=20
> used in the parsing expressions, and their precedences.=20
>
> > If a PEG formalization cannot be easily used by a real human being to=
=20
> > learn and use the language, more easily than the official YACC=20
> > version, the PEG formalization is pretty much useless.=20
>
> > But there is little real value in a PEG grammar that is merely=20
> > identical to the YACC specification, with no added functionality,=20
> > which is why provable equivalence isn't important enough to bother=20
> > with.=20
>
> No, no, there would be HUGE value in it!  A PEG formalization would be=20
> useful because (1) it would, finally, be a complete specification of=20
> Lojban orthography, morphology, and grammar;


Lojban grammar can NOT be expressed via PEG. PEG is not powerful enough.=20

> (2) it would, finally,=20
> provide proof that Lojban is unambiguous; (3) it would be readily=20
> portable to any computing system, using any programming language; and=20
> (4) it would provide parse trees that could be used to implement a=20
> variety of useful tools for processing Lojban text.=20
>
> Proving equivalence between the PEG and the YACC is vitally important=20
> because (A) there should be some way to be sure that PEG-based tools are=
=20
> designed and implemented correctly; and (B) if a PEG formulation is ever=
=20
> adopted as the official grammar, we would want to make sure it's fully=20
> compatible with the historical YACC version of the grammar.=20
>
> > It might be nice to have a lexer/parser that can operate on based on=20
> > an official formal grammar but not at the expense of someone being=20
> > able to actually use the formal grammar to learn the language.=20
>
> > I don't even like E-BNF, which many people apparently prefer to the=20
> > YACC grammar.=20
>
> The E-BNF is quite readable, although the E-BNF in the CLL has MANY=20
> errors in it.  I find the YACC almost completely unintelligible.  I only=
=20
> refer to the YACC when verifying or making corrections to the E-BNF.=20
>
> > There have been attempts to formalize the morphpology as an algorithm,=
=20
> > which my wife worked on with a couple other people.=20
>
> Yes, I know.  I remember talking with her about it at Logfest in 2006.=20
> Now 14 years later, I still haven't figured out what Lojban's morphology=
=20
> rules are supposed to be.  That's actually why I'm reading the PEG: to=20
> figure out Lojban's morphology rules.=20
>
> > started playing with PEG grammars.  Again, Nora's algorithm was "good=
=20
> > enough" in that it completely specified the rules, even if it didn't=20
> > match any formalization scheme.=20
>
> What we have isn't good enough, because it's an incomplete specification=
=20
> of Lojban morphology.  Aside from the PEG, there is no way to distiguish=
=20
> fu'ivla from lujvo, for instance.  There are a lot of constructs which=20
> could be classified either way, and the CLL doesn't provide enough rules=
=20
> to disambiguate those cases.=20
>
> > In the early oughts, we started trying to formalize the morphology in=
=20
> > a fixed algorithm, NOT in any schema such as YACC or PEG or even BNF,=
=20
> > and we reached a more or less satisfactory conclusion, though the=20
>
> Where might this alogrithm be documented?  (If you're referring to the=20
> lujvo-making alogrithm printed in the CLL, it's not complete.)=20
>
> > But no one was ever satisfied with any particular formalization, and=20
> > it has never been a big priority.=20
>
> I don't understand how formalizing the morphology CAN'T be an important=
=20
> priority; it's essential to proving the unambiguity of the language.=20
>
> > result was never officially approved because people were pursuing the=
=20
> > PEG approach by then.  Nora wrote a simplistic Turbo-Pascal program to=
=20
> > verify that algorithm matched human understanding (which is the=20
>
> Pascal code is not readily usable in modern computing environments, and=
=20
> can't readily be translated into rules which ARE useful in modern=20
> software.  Nor is it particularly readable, if one is trying to learn=20
> (decipher) the Lojban morphology rules.=20
>
> > Who is waiting?  There's probably no real market for anything more=20
> > sophisticated than we have now.  And the approval of "dotside" would=20
>
> Everyone, I think?  That's why there's so much interest in PEG=20
> formalizations.  What we have now is a collection of toys.  What we want=
=20
> is a collection of tools.  So far, all of our "tools" are really just=20
> assorted collections of hacks: cobbled-together bits of software which=20
> implement approximations of Lojban, each implemented for/in its own very=
=20
> specific computing environment.=20
>
> BTW, thank for your post RE: Jeff Prothero.=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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/b1628c0f-f40b-4f65-90b2-594dbfee1652%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_925_515807329.1587800024995
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><br>Em s=C3=A1bado, 25 de abril de 2020 02:11:28 UTC+3=
, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org  escreveu:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_qu=
ote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padd=
ing-left: 1ex;">Bob LeChevalier &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:lojbab@lojban.org" ta=
rget=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;mailto:loj=
bab@lojban.org&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;mailto:lojbab=
@lojban.org&#39;;return true;">lojbab@lojban.org</a>&gt; writes:
<br>
<br>&gt; On 4/14/2020 1:59 PM, <a href=3D"mailto:scope845hlang343jbo@icebub=
ble.org" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39=
;mailto:scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"thi=
s.href=3D&#39;mailto:scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org&#39;;return true;">s=
cope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.<wbr>org</a> wrote:
<br>&gt;&gt; Gleki Arxokuna &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.co=
m" target=3D"_blank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;mailt=
o:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39=
;mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com&#39;;return true;">gleki.is.my.name@gmai=
l.com</a>&gt; writes:
<br>
<br>&gt;&gt; None of what you have writen here makes any sense to me. =C2=
=A0What do you
<br>&gt;&gt; mean?
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; As I said in my other answer (which I seem to have been sending on=
ly
<br>&gt; to you and not to the list, so I will continue that way), the offi=
cial
<br>
<br>Hm. =C2=A0That reply of mine wasn&#39;t address to you, it was addresse=
d to Gleki
<br>Arxokuna &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com" target=3D"_b=
lank" rel=3D"nofollow" onmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;mailto:gleki.is.my.n=
ame@gmail.com&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"this.href=3D&#39;mailto:gleki.i=
s.my.name@gmail.com&#39;;return true;">gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com</a>&gt;.
<br>
<br>&gt;&gt; yet we still don&#39;t have a complete grammar
<br>&gt;
<br>&gt; The official YACC grammar in CLL is considered complete.
<br>
<br>I realize that the YACC is &quot;considered&quot; authoritative, but it=
 is not
<br>complete. =C2=A0For starters, it requires a separate lexer. =C2=A0Neith=
er the
<br>lexer nor parser are usable unless you&#39;re in an environment where y=
ou
<br>can run code written in C. =C2=A0And, if you do get them to run, the re=
sults
<br>are not correct. =C2=A0Neither elidable terminators nor magic words are
<br>handled correctly, and there is no formal specification (just narrative
<br>descriptions in the CLL) for how they should work. =C2=A0For example, I=
 have
<br>yet to see a parser which handles SA correctly.
<br>
<br>&gt; I don&#39;t understand any PEG grammar; it is gobbledygook to me.
<br>
<br>PEG is fairly straightforward. =C2=A0You just have to learn the operato=
rs
<br>used in the parsing expressions, and their precedences.
<br>
<br>&gt; If a PEG formalization cannot be easily used by a real human being=
 to
<br>&gt; learn and use the language, more easily than the official YACC
<br>&gt; version, the PEG formalization is pretty much useless.
<br>
<br>&gt; But there is little real value in a PEG grammar that is merely
<br>&gt; identical to the YACC specification, with no added functionality,
<br>&gt; which is why provable equivalence isn&#39;t important enough to bo=
ther
<br>&gt; with.
<br>
<br>No, no, there would be HUGE value in it! =C2=A0A PEG formalization woul=
d be
<br>useful because (1) it would, finally, be a complete specification of
<br>Lojban orthography, morphology, and grammar;</blockquote><div><br></div=
><div>Lojban grammar can NOT be expressed via PEG. PEG is not powerful enou=
gh.=C2=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-=
left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"> (2) it would, =
finally,
<br>provide proof that Lojban is unambiguous; (3) it would be readily
<br>portable to any computing system, using any programming language; and
<br>(4) it would provide parse trees that could be used to implement a
<br>variety of useful tools for processing Lojban text.
<br>
<br>Proving equivalence between the PEG and the YACC is vitally important
<br>because (A) there should be some way to be sure that PEG-based tools ar=
e
<br>designed and implemented correctly; and (B) if a PEG formulation is eve=
r
<br>adopted as the official grammar, we would want to make sure it&#39;s fu=
lly
<br>compatible with the historical YACC version of the grammar.
<br>
<br>&gt; It might be nice to have a lexer/parser that can operate on based =
on
<br>&gt; an official formal grammar but not at the expense of someone being
<br>&gt; able to actually use the formal grammar to learn the language.
<br>
<br>&gt; I don&#39;t even like E-BNF, which many people apparently prefer t=
o the
<br>&gt; YACC grammar.
<br>
<br>The E-BNF is quite readable, although the E-BNF in the CLL has MANY
<br>errors in it. =C2=A0I find the YACC almost completely unintelligible. =
=C2=A0I only
<br>refer to the YACC when verifying or making corrections to the E-BNF.
<br>
<br>&gt; There have been attempts to formalize the morphpology as an algori=
thm,
<br>&gt; which my wife worked on with a couple other people.
<br>
<br>Yes, I know. =C2=A0I remember talking with her about it at Logfest in 2=
006.
<br>Now 14 years later, I still haven&#39;t figured out what Lojban&#39;s m=
orphology
<br>rules are supposed to be. =C2=A0That&#39;s actually why I&#39;m reading=
 the PEG: to
<br>figure out Lojban&#39;s morphology rules.
<br>
<br>&gt; started playing with PEG grammars. =C2=A0Again, Nora&#39;s algorit=
hm was &quot;good
<br>&gt; enough&quot; in that it completely specified the rules, even if it=
 didn&#39;t
<br>&gt; match any formalization scheme.
<br>
<br>What we have isn&#39;t good enough, because it&#39;s an incomplete spec=
ification
<br>of Lojban morphology. =C2=A0Aside from the PEG, there is no way to dist=
iguish
<br>fu&#39;ivla from lujvo, for instance. =C2=A0There are a lot of construc=
ts which
<br>could be classified either way, and the CLL doesn&#39;t provide enough =
rules
<br>to disambiguate those cases.
<br>
<br>&gt; In the early oughts, we started trying to formalize the morphology=
 in
<br>&gt; a fixed algorithm, NOT in any schema such as YACC or PEG or even B=
NF,
<br>&gt; and we reached a more or less satisfactory conclusion, though the
<br>
<br>Where might this alogrithm be documented? =C2=A0(If you&#39;re referrin=
g to the
<br>lujvo-making alogrithm printed in the CLL, it&#39;s not complete.)
<br>
<br>&gt; But no one was ever satisfied with any particular formalization, a=
nd
<br>&gt; it has never been a big priority.
<br>
<br>I don&#39;t understand how formalizing the morphology CAN&#39;T be an i=
mportant
<br>priority; it&#39;s essential to proving the unambiguity of the language=
.
<br>
<br>&gt; result was never officially approved because people were pursuing =
the
<br>&gt; PEG approach by then. =C2=A0Nora wrote a simplistic Turbo-Pascal p=
rogram to
<br>&gt; verify that algorithm matched human understanding (which is the
<br>
<br>Pascal code is not readily usable in modern computing environments, and
<br>can&#39;t readily be translated into rules which ARE useful in modern
<br>software. =C2=A0Nor is it particularly readable, if one is trying to le=
arn
<br>(decipher) the Lojban morphology rules.
<br>
<br>&gt; Who is waiting? =C2=A0There&#39;s probably no real market for anyt=
hing more
<br>&gt; sophisticated than we have now. =C2=A0And the approval of &quot;do=
tside&quot; would
<br>
<br>Everyone, I think? =C2=A0That&#39;s why there&#39;s so much interest in=
 PEG
<br>formalizations. =C2=A0What we have now is a collection of toys. =C2=A0W=
hat we want
<br>is a collection of tools. =C2=A0So far, all of our &quot;tools&quot; ar=
e really just
<br>assorted collections of hacks: cobbled-together bits of software which
<br>implement approximations of Lojban, each implemented for/in its own ver=
y
<br>specific computing environment.
<br>
<br>BTW, thank for your post RE: Jeff Prothero.
<br></blockquote></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/lojban/b1628c0f-f40b-4f65-90b2-594dbfee1652%40googlegroups.com?u=
tm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lo=
jban/b1628c0f-f40b-4f65-90b2-594dbfee1652%40googlegroups.com</a>.<br />

------=_Part_925_515807329.1587800024995--

------=_Part_924_1080428249.1587800024995--