From lojban+bncCO2N0YfCFhCgn4LeBBoE1Z-7pQ@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 07:48:24 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f140.google.com ([209.85.210.140]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0byt-0007dU-CL; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:48:24 -0700 Received: by yxe4 with SMTP id 4sf2055476yxe.28 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:48:12 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:x-originating-ip:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=7iZq1exnHyx/XQC7SGJKFPlK+ZbOg1oYHWPr3i+OC58=; b=OEQpDIW9Q3YAITBH5tFdjydRmDdwtjdn4dhUvwEmTnVQRGz9Q8vHOlpJV1LHQku6oI wOMOvxdbFDwy19WX2QgScYdkXcOH7IPr7t3ZOwjOCT0cImF4ZH+lCX5zUTnycwgEDaj6 X4Jc12LWi3D9T0IpFe4hw6x2/0lZnCdH0ECUM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-originating-ip:message-id:from:to :in-reply-to:mime-version:subject:date:references:x-mailer :x-original-authentication-results:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :x-thread-url:x-message-url:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=wwGXK+I8RZf91t/xGAWCnonnxtvBo1f2KYib25wu1cChrLRaqcKsE972dzROMle3G+ NGXrg0GX99nnnNad5aJJTQnWKRAnIEwSu1yW8RKcj+RWRYyJPtsa2GlCs4qlelf1Lh3f SD0QMeA6RxKj4zjwbhMMhfoHOmfAJkBrqQ9Qo= Received: by 10.91.209.13 with SMTP id l13mr287843agq.17.1270910880655; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:48:00 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.187.210 with SMTP id cx18ls311905ibb.0.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.168.82 with SMTP id t18mr166655iby.14.1270910879836; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.168.82 with SMTP id t18mr166654iby.14.1270910879808; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from kcout02.prserv.net (kcout02.prserv.net [12.154.55.32]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 19si339846iwn.10.2010.04.10.07.47.59; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 07:47:59 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 12.154.55.32 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of kpreid@switchb.org) client-ip=12.154.55.32; Received: from [ipv6:::1] (linode.feoh.org[97.107.129.138]) by prserv.net (kcout02) with SMTP id <2010041014475920200e0o18e> (Authid: usinet.kpreid); Sat, 10 Apr 2010 14:47:59 +0000 X-Originating-IP: [97.107.129.138] Message-Id: From: Kevin Reid To: lojban@googlegroups.com In-Reply-To: <4BC08255.1000201@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Subject: Re: [lojban] The efficacy of Lojban's grammar. Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 10:47:56 -0400 References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100409002127.GA11541@digitalkingdom.org> <201004092108.00980.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4BBFDF2F.6050509@gmail.com> <20100410035904.GS11541@digitalkingdom.org> <4BC08255.1000201@gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 12.154.55.32 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of kpreid@switchb.org) smtp.mail=kpreid@switchb.org X-Original-Sender: kpreid@switchb.org Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: X-Thread-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/t/c67f210addc06a0c X-Message-Url: http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/msg/16c83564a698861 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Apr 10, 2010, at 9:51, And Rosta wrote: > I wager that syntactic structures that would be assigned to Lojban =20 > sentences by (1) syntacticians and (2) Lojban speakers would differ =20 > very substantially from the syntactic structures assigned by the =20 > formal grammar. [Disclaimer: I Am Not A Linguist.] In my experience developing software which works with the results of =20 parsing using formal grammar (well, the PEG version), the trees =20 produced by the formal grammar are not like how I internally think of =20 Lojban grammar, but insofar as they are, *they aren't what I would =20 design as a formal AST for Lojban either*. In particular, the trees have a huge number of nodes which pertain =20 only to the implementation structure of the grammar and are both =20 redundant and unrelated to the semantics of Lojban. This falls out =20 from the fact that the parser produces one tree node per nonterminal, =20 named according to that nonterminal, unconditionally: no appropriate =20 specialized actions/transformations have been defined. There are two major problems with the usefulness of the produced parse =20 trees: 1. There are many nodes with exactly one child which reflect rules =20 that exist only due to the factoring of the grammar, or nested cases =20 in order to produce the proper parse tree for various optional clauses =20 which usually don't exist. 2. The nodes are named according to the nonterminal, not according =20 to the matched rule. This means that the names reflect the syntactic =20 role, the slot it fills, rather than what the slot was filled with. The =20 result of this is that an interpretation of a given subtree has be =20 inferred from the number and kind of child nodes rather than an actual symbol =20 in the tree. Particularly, note that the second problem is because the information =20 *simply does not exist* in a formal system. The formal grammar(s) we =20 have are simply defined to accept/reject sentences; the information =20 about "what are these particular alternatives called" exists only =20 informally in the CLL and other semantic-description documents. So: I agree that the formal grammar produces weird structures. However, I believe it would be possible to create a parser, or =20 transform the output of the current parser(s), such that the structure =20 *is* similar to what a syntactician, or a Lojban speaker who is =20 familiar with parsers and formal grammars (such as for programming =20 languages), would assign. Furthermore, I believe this particular project *should* be done, as it =20 would (a) aid the development of computer software which interprets =20 Lojban, and (b) be a useful tool in discussing =93what does this Lojban =20 sentence mean=94 and making sure that the semantics of Lojban are fully =20 defined. --=20 Kevin Reid --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.