Received: from spooler by stryx.demon.co.uk (Mercury/32 v2.01); 14 Sep 98 23:45:48 +0000 Return-path: Received: from punt-21.mail.demon.net (194.217.242.6) by stryx.demon.co.uk (Mercury/32 v2.01); 14 Sep 98 23:45:35 +0000 Received: from punt-2.mail.demon.net by mailstore for ia@stryx.demon.co.uk id 905764128:20:04858:29; Mon, 14 Sep 98 09:08:48 GMT Received: from listserv.cuny.edu ([128.228.100.10]) by punt-2.mail.demon.net id aa2004733; 14 Sep 98 9:08 GMT Received: from listserv (listserv.cuny.edu) by listserv.cuny.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1b) with SMTP id <1.FE9C70B5@listserv.cuny.edu>; Mon, 14 Sep 1998 5:09:45 -0400 Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1998 05:08:00 -0400 Reply-To: Logical Language Group Sender: Lojban list From: Logical Language Group Subject: Error (contradiction) discovered in the Book X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Multiple recipients of list LOJBAN Message-ID: <905764107.204733.0@listserv.cuny.edu> X-PMFLAGS: 33554560 7 1 Y0329A.CNM Content-Length: 3587 Lines: 67 Nora found an honest to goodness error in The Complete Lojban Language yesterday (and we have verified this with John Cowan). In the discussion of "cei", Chapter 7, example 5.5, pg 151, and the corresponding example for CEI in the selma'o catalog, the baselined grammar will not parse the sentence as explained in the text. Specifically, "cei has "short-scope" and binds to the closest/smallest tanru unit possible. Thus in example 5.5, to get the long-scope reading given in the translation, one would need to surround the entire tanru by "ke... ke'e" brackets. John, Nora, and I had instantaneous agreement that the baselined formal grammar takes precedence over an example in the book (if at all possible, which it is in this case), so the formal grammar determines the standard. It is unfortunate, in making cei less useful in afterthought (you have to have marked the beginning of the tanru string being assigned), but it has the advantage of allowing cei to represent only a part of a larger tanru, should someone ever want to do so. But the book is "wrong" at least in having the example which contradicts the formal grammar. No way to talk around this one, like we have done for the wording of the discussion of "ni" %^) Since I am posting, I will let people iknow what "Lojban Central"is up to, these days. Of course I am primarily concerned with keeping book orders going out as they come in, having finally gotten caught up with all back orders a couple weeks ago, while getting our financial and business affairs in order and getting our address list up to date so I can finally notify all the non-Lojban List people of the book's publication. Nora is again working on her multi-year Lojban Glosser project. The prior version of a few years ago was only minimally useful, putting out a word-for- word translation with no recognition of the grammar. She is now incorporating an analysis of the parser output in order to identify in the gloss the place structure position of each sumti, assigning an English preposition or some other flag of that position to each sumti where possible in order to give the gloss some semantic sense. In order to test this, she needs a parser for the final baselined grammar, which John Cowan had never produced. So he is in turn working on such a parser, though I am not sure how quickly he will have it tested and solid enough for general release - we'll put it on the Web/ftp sites only when he says it is good enough. Book sales, BTW are at approximately 210 paid copies, which is about half way to the break-even point. I have yet to work out a settlement with the printer based on the bad copies we found, but that will be getting my attention in the coming week (I hope). lojbab ---- lojbab lojbab@access.digex.net Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: ftp.access.digex.net /pub/access/lojbab or see Lojban WWW Server: href="http://xiron.pc.helsinki.fi/lojban/" Order _The Complete Lojban Language_ - see our Web pages or ask me.