Re: [lojban] The efficacy of Lojban's grammar.

[Timo Paulssen <timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de>]

Adam D. Lopresto wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Apr 2010, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>> lI was asserting that people actually *do* use the formal grammar
>> internally, and you're asserting you don't.
>
> I can't speak for whether you're an outlier or not, but I feel as
> though I
> work from an internal grammar as well.  It is *certainly* not as
> detailed as
> the actual grammar (with all of its empty nodes and such), but it is very
> similar in its structure (and it is my intent to make it even closer).

In my head it feels like a hybrid approach for parsing: whenever I see a
structure that I've seen a hundred times before, I immediately grab the
matching tree-form from my cache, but whenever I see something I've not
seen before (or not seen often enough), it feels like I'm walking some
tree close to what Adam described. When I generate stuff, it feels that
way, too. I think the "formal grammar" I've got in my head is much
simpler than the one the parsers use, because my head uses a more
concise format, that handles elidable terminators and such much better :)

This previous paragraph might also amount to a load of bull, so a pinch
of salt is recommended to go with the dung.

mu'o mi'e timos

-- 
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.