[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] BPFK work

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
> Jorge Llambías wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:28 PM, Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 3. The formalization of the machine grammar has not to my knowledge ever
>>> been fully implemented,
>>
>> It has for several years now. It hasn't yet been made official, but it
>> has been formalized, the whole thing, from the morphology up,
>> including all the tricky magic words.
>
> Where is the parser that handles all the tricky magic words and all the
> morphological analysis?

Ask Robin, or someone who uses it. It's called "camxes".
If Google leads me right, you can download it from:
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/
but I'm not the best person to ask about that. I know that people have
been using it, but I don't like using parsers.

> I *said* that the formalization had never been fully implemented.

You did, but that's not true.

> As far as I am concerned, a formalization which is not implemented has not
> been, and cannot be, properly tested to see if the formalization is
> "correct".

It can be tested, it has been tested, and it continues to be tested.

>> There are some issues still to decide, but not because they haven't
>> been formalized, only because we have to make choices as to which
>> formal version of a rule is preferrable.
>
> If we haven't decided, then there is no complete formalization, much less an
> implementation of the formalization.

The issues to be decided are trivial to implement one way or the other
after the decision is made. The bottleneck is the decision, not the
implementation. You can download one implementation, which may or may
not agree in every detail with the grammar that will end up being
declared official, but to my knowledge there are no outstanding issues
about implementation.

>>> By the formal language, no fa'o: no end of text.
>>
>> That's not quite right.
>>
>>  In PEG, FAhO is optional, otherwise the end of input is enough to
>> signal the end of text.
>
> How does the computer know "end of input"?  "fa'o" is the equivalent of
> whatever signal the computer uses to detect that state.

"fa'o" is a cmavo, a word spoken by a human being, and recognized by
the formal grammar. It is an optional indicator for the end of the
"text" construct. The signal the computer uses to detect end of input
is not a cmavo or anything like it.

>> In BNF the rule for FAhO is only given informally, it is not a part of
>> the formalization:
>> "FAhO is a universal terminator and signals the end of parsable input."
>
> Then the BNF is not a complete formal grammar.

No it isn't, and neither is the YACC. The only complete formal grammar
we have is PEG.

>> By the formal grammar, each input that parses correctly
>> is a valid Lojban text. There's no reason to think that only one valid
>> Lojban text exists in all the universe.
>
> There is no reason NOT to think so.  In a formalism, only that which has
> been formalized exists.

I have my reasons. Look:

"mi klama le zarci"
"mi tatpi"

That's two different and valid Lojban texts there. So I have good
reasons to believe that more than one valid Lojban text do exist.

>>>> Why? Why wouldn't the computer just parse each speaker's text on its
>>>> own?
>>>
>>> The computer doesn't know what a "speaker" is.
>>
>> Computers nowadays are pretty good at voice recognition.
>
> If the formal grammar specifies the decisions of a particular voice
> recognition program as constituting the definitions of multiple texts, then
> that will be relevant.
>
> If there is no specified formal rule, then it doesn't exist as part of the
> formal system.

Of course it is not part of the formal grammar. That's my side of the
argument. All the formal grammar tells you is whether you have a valid
text or not. What you choose to do with those valid texts, for example
have a conversation with another Lojbanist by exchanging valid texts,
is no concern of the formal grammar.

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.