To: llg-members@lojban.org
References: <8BCCD0E2-E6D4-4687-9D89-D177E69E1259@gmail.com>
 <56DE1D83.8050901@lojban.org>
 <8EC7FC36-8C8F-43FD-AE6A-C704D1D9C2CE@gmail.com>
 <12678381.nPyR9sEY1K@caracal> <56E0AE11.8020708@lojban.org>
 <56E1F54E.3040501@lojban.org> <56EF1C47.6060900@lojban.org>
 <56F467BF.9060405@lojban.org>
 <CAP=UV6rKzkNLfz1VEgy5Cxgbp8+_8-V9qfOVLRwGpyv=LT=oRw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAFoHDTfPs_PWZrofyoOdxd5=oKZf08M8XhBkfgQg+oeKBH2efg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20160325025551.GF897@mercury.ccil.org> <a2zk1s00U56Cr6M012zloR>
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
Message-ID: <56F711B8.5000100@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 18:48:24 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a2zk1s00U56Cr6M012zloR>
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -
Subject: Re: [Llg-members] 2015 Annual Meeting - Old Business
X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20
Precedence: list
List-Id: <llg-members.lojban.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/options/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/private/llg-members/>
List-Post: <mailto:llg-members@lojban.org>
List-Help: <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members>,
 <mailto:llg-members-request@lojban.org?subject=subscribe>
Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org

On 3/24/2016 10:59 PM, Curtis Franks wrote:
> I agree/my current understanding is yours. So maybe Lojbab can explain
> his reasoning first and then selpa'i can counter.
>
> On Mar 24, 2016 22:56, "John Cowan" <cowan@mercury.ccil.org
> <mailto:cowan@mercury.ccil.org>> wrote:
>
>     Curtis Franks scripsit:
>
>      > I would like to learn in greater detail the reason for the BPFK's
>     decision
>      > regarding the purposeful and theoretic rejection of parsers as
>     determining
>      > the formal grammar of the language.
>
>     As I understand it, the formal grammars are the various documents such
>     as the Yacc grammar, the BNF grammar, and the PEG grammar, rather than
>     any specific mechanization of any of these as a parsing program.

My statement was
> I also think it would be appropriate to have a motion specifically
> approving of the jatna's approach to the formal grammar and parser,
> which as I understand means that no parser will be a standard of
> grammatical correctness. I don't particularly like this myself, in part
> because I don't really understand non-YACC grammar definitions and have
> always needed to rely on a parser to know whether what I write is
> "proper", but it isn't my decision.

My "reasoning" was a reaction tho selpa'i's report.  Alan Burka says 
that no final decision has been made, and if that is the case, my 
statement may be premature.  (but note that I did refer to his approach, 
and not to any actual decision of the BPFK)

The status quo is that the YACC grammar and the EBNF in the original 
edition of CLL are part of the language definition documents, and if 
there are any contradictions between the two, the YACC grammar takes 
precedence.

 From 20+ years of working with it, I more or less understand the YACC 
grammar and what it means.  If I am uncertain (which is often these days 
since I don't practice much), I type something into the official parser 
that John Cowan created back in the day, and consider its output to be 
definitive.  If it accepts the sentence, then it is grammatical.  If 
not, it isn't.  This means that I inherently don't accept any 
experimental cmavo (regardless of selma'o) because that parser doesn't 
recognize any of them.

That is my own personal choice, not binding on anyone else (unless you 
decide to try to read something I write in Lojban).  That is why I said 
at the end that it is not my decision.

So far, neither xorlo nor dotside, the two approved changes to the old 
baseline, required a change to the formal grammar or to the official parser.

I have never looked at any of the PEG grammar proposals.  I don't 
understand what a PEG grammar is, or why it would be an "improvement" on 
the YACC grammar.  Nora did attempt to look at it several years ago, and 
she said that she did not understand it and that she found it unuseful 
to her as a grammar definition.  Her disapproval is one reason that I've 
never bothered.

I should note that I understand that others have found the EBNF to be 
much easier to understand than the YACC grammar.  I even understand why, 
but I have never been able to USE the EBNF grammar to understand a 
Lojban sentence, much less a text.  I suspect that I would have at least 
as much trouble with the PEG grammar, compounded by my own limitations 
in learning new stuff in my 60s.   And I'm not really motivated to try, 
since it continues to be something Not Yet Finished, and I am unwilling 
to invest effort in learning things that I will have to relearn.

It is likely that if the language changes such that I no longer can use 
the parser I have (which I use on any nontrivial text that I write), I 
will probably cease trying to use Lojban (or just go on writing the 
language I know, and let someone else worry about making it comply with 
changes.  This isn't an attempt to schism the language; it is merely my 
recognition that part of my whole philosophy behind the language 
creation was that it would change very little once it was done, so 
people who learned the language would not have to relearn stuff.  Their 
old usages might grow obsolete, as happens with natural languages, but 
the language prescription would not change any faster than the language 
evolved naturally.

The community did not like my "conservative" position on language 
change, and I "lost" the battle (or rather decided that it was not 
something I would fight, because I also believe that the language 
ultimately belongs to the people who use it, and not to me).

lojbab


_______________________________________________
Llg-members mailing list
Llg-members@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members