Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> You are taking the fact that they do not parse as evidence that they are
>  multiple texts.  But formally, if it doesn't parse, it is simply incorrect,
> even if pieces of it are correct separately.

Why do you think all our learning materials are offering incorrect
Lojban as examples?

>  The human inputter has to do a break-up, according to
> informal rules.

A computer can also be programmed to do that, possibly using
statistical methods, but that's neither here nor there. Yes, the
formal grammar needs to be fed the chunk to be tested for correctness.

> One such informal rule is that a new speaker is a new text.

Excellent.

>  But that is an informal rule of pragmatics, and not part of the definition
> of Lojban.  The proposals, I think, are proposals to override the informal
> considerations of pragmatics.  I don't know if this is a good idea unless we
> codify the rules of Lojban pragmatics.  But I'm willing to consider the
> possibility.

So after all the brouhaha, we are in agreement after all. Do you see
now why I said that the proposed new word could not be in any of the
regular selma'o? The formal grammar will never get to see the new
word, it is only useful to the human (or computer) who will be
deciding what chunk to feed to the parser, but it has to be invisible
to the parser itself.

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.