From pycyn@aol.com Sat Oct 05 14:24:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_2_0); 5 Oct 2002 21:24:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 48644 invoked from network); 5 Oct 2002 21:24:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m11.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 5 Oct 2002 21:24:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m08.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.163) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 5 Oct 2002 21:24:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m08.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v34.13.) id r.80.22a673b5 (4230) for ; Sat, 5 Oct 2002 17:23:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <80.22a673b5.2ad0b26c@aol.com> Date: Sat, 5 Oct 2002 17:23:56 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: a new kind of fundamentalism To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_80.22a673b5.2ad0b26c_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10509 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_80.22a673b5.2ad0b26c_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/5/2002 9:15:09 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes: << > Technically, the BNF 'grammar' is more like a grammaticality-checker > than a true grammar. That is, it will tell you whether or not a > string is well-formed Lojban, but it won't tell you what it means. >> though I shouldn't say so, this is a hairsplitting technicality in this discussion. OK, The BNF 'grammmar' (but isn't it in fact the yacced grammar) is the final authority on syntax. The further move to connection with meaning -- something which exists for no langauge that I know of (including machine languages) -- is what jboske is largely about. And making that move is greatly aided by having the syntax fixed (and the vocab, too, of course). --part1_80.22a673b5.2ad0b26c_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/5/2002 9:15:09 AM Central Daylight Time, a.rosta@lycos.co.uk writes:

<<

Technically, the BNF 'grammar' is more like a grammaticality-checker
than a true grammar. That is, it will tell you whether or not a
string is well-formed Lojban, but it won't tell you what it means.

>>
though I shouldn't say so, this is a hairsplitting technicality in this discussion. OK, The BNF 'grammmar' (but isn't it in fact the yacced grammar) is the final authority on syntax. The further move to connection with meaning -- something which exists for no langauge that I know of (including machine languages) -- is what jboske is largely about. And making that move is greatly aided by having the syntax fixed (and the vocab, too, of course). --part1_80.22a673b5.2ad0b26c_boundary--