From lojban+bncCNuStaWoDxCdsoLeBBoEE8kVNg@googlegroups.com Sat Apr 10 08:28:53 2010 Received: from mail-yw0-f137.google.com ([209.85.211.137]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1O0cc4-0001lo-3y; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:52 -0700 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf904217ywh.28 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:41 -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:received:received:message-id:date :from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :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=4CcxMqp9nYKldwuz1WLjZrkQ4mDehFc2qSjw57ehBv8=; b=hbWmB0LfpUnlZVYqw/uUGntb8IZSgGiuW8ws7fgO7JPt7pbIMBi9Gr8XpP15U7rJol upLydzNTIdHlp2164LoGXowdBTZtq6dWjutp/95L8Y0N02b1b71H+OcVlheJzqxFA5Y3 B/x08my7nmpSjinGIGlHZJIno3l/hj7+0EW/I= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :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=aet9GwjPDyL7leK54p1zfdJOcbxwaDw6OBx0QyfzVFTRK+f85xBBuyRS2dsVVYXyYN fsb8oYms+UDus0W4mPJpej2ZmfyEoPBiMat44M0kPh0Mxu/28YtVlvtRAZQu4KYeqLow k72yUOPM1/t7s9iWZ7eOpVEodeYjTSUqOoLkE= Received: by 10.91.84.19 with SMTP id m19mr297160agl.12.1270913309245; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:29 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.223.36.203 with SMTP id u11ls389631fad.2.p; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.100.134 with SMTP id y6mr124093fan.12.1270913307452; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.223.100.134 with SMTP id y6mr124092fan.12.1270913307427; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-bw0-f222.google.com (mail-bw0-f222.google.com [209.85.218.222]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 18si209154fxm.13.2010.04.10.08.28.26; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.222 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.222; Received: by bwz22 with SMTP id 22so3156667bwz.5 for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.204.152.13 with SMTP id e13mr1842038bkw.30.1270913306222; Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.1.67] (87-194-76-9.bethere.co.uk [87.194.76.9]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id s17sm19866738bkd.16.2010.04.10.08.28.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 10 Apr 2010 08:28:25 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4BC09918.7090707@gmail.com> Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2010 16:28:24 +0100 From: And Rosta User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.24 (Windows/20100228) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] The efficacy of Lojban's grammar. 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> In-Reply-To: X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 209.85.218.222 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com 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/10c331c1d779d89e Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Kevin Reid, On 10/04/2010 15:47: > On Apr 10, 2010, at 9:51, And Rosta wrote: >=20 >> 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. >=20 > [Disclaimer: I Am Not A Linguist.] >=20 > In my experience developing software which works with the results of=20 > parsing using formal grammar (well, the PEG version), the trees produced= =20 > by the formal grammar are not like how I internally think of Lojban=20 > grammar, but insofar as they are, *they aren't what I would design as a= =20 > formal AST for Lojban either*. >=20 > In particular, the trees have a huge number of nodes which pertain only= =20 > to the implementation structure of the grammar and are both redundant=20 > and unrelated to the semantics of Lojban. This falls out from the fact=20 > that the parser produces one tree node per nonterminal, named according= =20 > to that nonterminal, unconditionally: no appropriate specialized=20 > actions/transformations have been defined. >=20 > There are two major problems with the usefulness of the produced parse=20 > trees: >=20 > 1. There are many nodes with exactly one child which reflect rules that > exist only due to the factoring of the grammar, or nested cases in= =20 > order > to produce the proper parse tree for various optional clauses which > usually don't exist. >=20 > 2. The nodes are named according to the nonterminal, not according to t= he > matched rule. This means that the names reflect the syntactic role,= =20 > 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 inferred fr= om > the number and kind of child nodes rather than an actual symbol in t= he > tree. >=20 > 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. Very well put, much better than I could have done. > So: >=20 > I agree that the formal grammar produces weird structures. >=20 > However, I believe it would be possible to create a parser, or transform= =20 > the output of the current parser(s), such that the structure *is*=20 > similar to what a syntactician, or a Lojban speaker who is familiar with= =20 > parsers and formal grammars (such as for programming languages), would=20 > assign. I agree, at least if it is enough to do it on a rough-and-ready basis. Inde= ed, I once had an undergraduate do a dissertation with me on precisely this= exercise. (Which in fact is where I first beheld the full horrors of Lojba= n parses in tree form.) > 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. I agree, in an ideal world, but it's not a simple job. Needs a (possibly am= ateur) syntactician with plenty of free time. Would that be you?=20 ---And. --=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.