Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 8:36 PM, Jonathan Jones <eyeonus@gmail.com> wrote:
> 2010/10/12 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>
>> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Right now, there are no formal rules governing multiple texts and their
>> > possible interactions.
>>
>> > Perhaps there should be, but I am inclined to think
>> > we should wait till the BYFY finishes the simpler "single text" problem
>> > we've been stuck on for years before making the job harder.
>>
>> Indeed. And we should avoid legislating on things that don't really
>> have anything to do with what a grammar is supposed to do.
>
> Then why did you even bring it up?

Bring what up? It was lojbab who suggested that perhaps there should
be formal rules governing multiple texts and their possible
interactions, not me. I'm not even sure such formal rules could be
added without completely breaking the language. Consider this:

A: do klama mo
B: lo zarci

Each of A and B is speaking proper Lojban. Any rule that results in
that exchange not counting as proper Lojban, is breaking the language,
in my opinion. And any rule that tells you how to separate the single
input "do klama mo lo zarci" into the two strings produced by A and B
will not be a formal grammar rule. At best it will be based on some
kind of heuristics. Or it will need some additional input like voice
recognition. I just don't see how you could feed that to a formal
parser and have the result of the parse be a conversation. At least
not with the type of formal grammars we have for Lojban today.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en.