From 3VCTESwgJBog4qxowuw6symux.o0yx0vnmzs00sxqs30614.o0y@groups.bounces.google.com Tue Apr 13 00:59:42 2010 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from <3VCTESwgJBog4qxowuw6symux.o0yx0vnmzs00sxqs30614.o0y@groups.bounces.google.com>) id 1O1b1y-0005fF-OO; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:41 -0700 Received: by vws14 with SMTP id 14sf573237vws.16 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:28 -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:mime-version:received:in-reply-to :references:from:date:received:message-id:subject: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; bh=2k04S91buMB31mbgIo68XLeM4IYnJ8FooaSAKJNhph8=; b=Zhv0Kp2907YVy+qnCJdr88JAgTbJTuCW++pDSZehHVKlLLT2SvEnR1h9NGPaKQNAjV EfzeFMSE8PUzv0Haejj14CLrXLK+oWod0VqB4GmsXkfye0lDmk+SDQhdRNxVo5na06lD qKPl33IzbJjDBL9dKraLWmwsgu/qY1uROdY4Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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; b=yplaGtmunTbcEdGcW5rsUIfMld/LjDnyZ/FibhbCmkj8X6acMvNRphmHh5srKZT9MM iyQbcgjoqT5N6udxQu17ofVfnqRApr/9FCsGo3om0ltNYaSiOuqT7gBrJbJKbz+5pchw b05+TQyuBTKF7+vBk/T4TRGvrqqWo4o82XFP8= Received: by 10.220.126.222 with SMTP id d30mr379248vcs.49.1271145556408; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.79.22 with SMTP id n22ls111478vck.3.p; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.76.203 with SMTP id d11mr1135039vck.11.1271145553181; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.220.76.203 with SMTP id d11mr1135038vck.11.1271145553135; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f44.google.com (mail-gw0-f44.google.com [74.125.83.44]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id 29si13764608vws.2.2010.04.13.00.59.11; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.44 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.83.44; Received: by gwb1 with SMTP id 1so1565872gwb.3 for ; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:11 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.10.203 with HTTP; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:58:51 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20100412182123.GR20647@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20100405210225.GW6084@digitalkingdom.org> <20100409002127.GA11541@digitalkingdom.org> <201004092108.00980.phma@phma.optus.nu> <4BBFDF2F.6050509@gmail.com> <20100410035904.GS11541@digitalkingdom.org> <20100412182123.GR20647@digitalkingdom.org> From: Stela Selckiku Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:58:51 -0400 Received: by 10.101.166.25 with SMTP id t25mr2187897ano.233.1271145551460; Tue, 13 Apr 2010 00:59:11 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] The efficacy of Lojban's grammar. To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of selckiku@gmail.com designates 74.125.83.44 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=selckiku@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com X-Original-Sender: selckiku@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/64e016f11bbf1cc4 Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:21 PM, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > I was asserting that people actually *do* use the formal grammar > internally, and you're asserting you don't. I think we must be saying the same thing in different ways. My guess is that our internal experience of parsing Lojban is the same. I do parse it according to the formal grammar (as best I know it, which is not quite to the level of the official insane mess) but I do so mostly habitually, through recognizing large forms and bringing them into the parse tree wholesale, not by parsing each word separately. I'm sure that you can read simple sentences at a glance, and I'm sure that on some level you do so through pattern matching, since that's the only way to get up to a reasonable speed. For instance if I see "lo broda lo brode cu brodi" obviously the parse tree I create in my mind is a perfectly standard one where the "lo broda" goes in the x1 and the "lo brode" goes in the x2 and the selbri is "brodi". But I sure as hell don't go through that sentence word by word, slowly elaborating the parse. As soon as my eyes have vaguely fixated on the sentence I can see that it goes "lo (something) lo (something) cu (something)", and by then my internal parse has already imported that whole structure that I'm terribly used to. Next I go about reading what the actual brivla are and putting some meaning into the thing, hanging some flesh on the bones. To put it another way, the grammar that I find myself using is not actually the formal grammar, but a vastly elaborated equivalent one, for convenience. It has numerous terminal nodes with complicated shapes like "gadri brivla/tanru prosumti NU bridi" or "gadri NU bridi cu brivla/tanru", all applied of course after washing off the UI, to/toi, etc. Then I can transform that structure on demand into the detailed perspective. To put it yet another way, when I read a sentence that goes "lo broda cu brode lo nu lo brodi cu brodo lo brodu", I swallow it in two bites: I get everything up to the nu, creating a partial parse in my mind with a big blank section for whatever's in the nu, so I've got "lo broda cu brode lo nu ((some bridi))". Then in the next bite I'll process the bridi after the nu, just like I'd swallow a short sentence whole, and plug that parse into the open slot in the first bite. Now I'm considering the meaning of the whole sentence, but the meaning is emerging from the interface of two unofficial chunks, not from an internal parse that superficially resembles the official grammar. Subjectively I find that I'm not only able to understand and parse to a formal grammar like Lojban's, but to do so quite easily and habitually by switching constantly between numerous functionally identical grammars in my mind, depending mostly on how much I'm able to pattern match before having to get down into the weeds. Does your internal process really seem different to you than that, doi .camgusmis.? Or are we just having a miscommunication? I'm curious. mi'e la stela selckiku mu'o -- 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@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.