From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Nov 06 08:27:05 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:27:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ky7hI-0001RU-LS for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:27:05 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.247]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ky7hF-0001RG-Lj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:27:04 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so715268rvf.46 for ; Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=yGELoIbk+VZtWteZtVIYSa+5y8zOLTIL3A+UG9vU+kg=; b=YXIOu4/tG9KM/a+GBmRXkvwBvRwMp+3OM9F07LWH6rSftp4Tov12EiM9GGKuow6fZt PCNEzZhLJEsPFFQ1hJJ2Ao12kuCrKsZynnsBoL7+omOb5mQcqImWh1j7NIvww3gfPDkF ENAgjAA3ConRe1lIyIdTZHg44mPcF/myAAKDI= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=WvBnAYaDE/7J6c6LUXxswYNQwLfK0irI1z2gb4pyy9mYTFu+pGCwXo+koFcbnKWc4H oluXsQJ/0O4jluEmfI2zFKkM0/Yu0Q7XEkd7zpjGXmArKV7uHuTQLj6EuIYoWBpvvKQd TxuansMFm7zJ9N8PwvkniuBtGo5Z+KU5ghvcY= Received: by 10.141.137.16 with SMTP id p16mr1288276rvn.180.1225988820678; Thu, 06 Nov 2008 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Thu, 6 Nov 2008 08:27:00 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560811060827m4ef817f7k822d66754725a0f3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2008 13:27:00 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: experimental cmavo in lojgloss. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30811022128n9e8692evefaa820062d2a652@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560811040350g2a04db8ewd2f34a8a43d96767@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30811041523o3574936fp27dea91b6a058c26@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30811050534i514b3fddv197b2a07a47655f9@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30811051630t6adad5e0x54456e789d70c5b@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560811060547x91443b1p7756e152f8093036@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14937 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Daniel Brockman wrote: > > Experienced Lojbanists are relatively unlikely to make blatant grammatical > errors. > They remain (depending on character, I suppose) prone to making all sorts of > mistakes, > grammatical or otherwise. I guess the most likely error for a fluent speaker should be a typo. A typo is likely to result in ungrammatical text or grammatical but with an uninteded structure, though in some cases it can result in a text with the same structure if the typo doesn't change the selma'o of the word. > As a result, the {le'ai} construct is often employed to make > corrections even when there are no grammatical *errors* anywhere in sight. A text that parses with an unintended parse tree is a grammatical error by the speaker, even if the text on its own is grammatically valid. It is as bad as one that does not parse, or perhaps even worse because it could be misleading without announcing that something is wrong. > For example, the #jbosnu channel accepts only grammatically correct Lojban. Interesting, I didn't know that. What parser does it use? > Hence, > you may not use {le'ai} constructions there. But that would be useful to > correct mistakes, > despite the fact that grammatical mistakes are not even allowed in the first > place. OK, what jbosnu seems to require is a construction like: correction <- (!SAhAI any-word)* SAhAI any-word* which constitutes a whole utterance all by itself. Any number of words (grammatical or not) followed by any number of words (grammatical o not). It would appear at the text level: text <- correction / ... Why would it be useful to be able to embed this construction in the midst of some other utterance? If the correction is not going to be used by the parser to fix anything, embedding it in a formally broken text won't work, because it will never be detected. Would it be of any use to embed it in a formally unbroken but effectively uninterpretable or incorrectly interpretable text? In other words, this construction as you are using it is used to make a comment about some other text, it's about how some other text should be fixed, not about the text it appears in. If that's the case, only SAhAI is required, because there is no need to separate the construction from anything else. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.