From phma@webjockey.net Wed Apr 30 15:34:36 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 30 Apr 2003 22:34:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 66894 invoked from network); 30 Apr 2003 22:32:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 30 Apr 2003 22:32:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 30 Apr 2003 22:32:31 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19B07r-0005iM-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:32:31 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19B07l-0005i0-00; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:32:25 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:32:24 -0700 (PDT) Received: from 208-150-110-21-adsl.precisionet.net ([208.150.110.21] helo=blackcat.ixazon.lan) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19B07d-0005hp-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 15:32:18 -0700 Received: by blackcat.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 137633E95; Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:31:57 -0400 (EDT) Organization: dis To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: nai in UI (was: BPFK phpbb) Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2003 18:31:56 -0400 User-Agent: KMail/1.5 References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200304301831.56527.phma@webjockey.net> X-archive-position: 5070 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: phma@webjockey.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: Pierre Abbat Reply-To: phma@webjockey.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Wednesday 30 April 2003 12:52, Jim Carter wrote: > Hey, wait a minute! Think modularity. There are morpheme streams that can > or can't be split into valid Lojban words. There are word streams that can > or can't be parsed into valid syntax trees. And there are semantic > constructs that are or aren't Carroll-esque. The phrase "meaningful > concept" is too vague to be a meaningful concept. I would like to amend > your pronouncement to say, a valid parser passes all valid word streams > (putting out a correct syntax tree) and rejects all invalid word streams, > where validity is judged from the grammar. In other words, the parser does > or doesn't truly realize that grammar. (I.e. makes it real.) (And as a > separate module, the semantic analyser may have an opinion about > jabberwockishness.) > > I'm sure we can come up with natlang examples where the parsing depends in > an essential way on the meaning of the words (not just their syntactic > category), but I can't think of one so early in the morning. But that kind > of a pain in the butt doesn't belong in Lojban. Think modularity! I agree (and for similar reasons separated lexing words from checking their validity). We have a context-free grammar that parses {kau} as UI, which can go anywhere. We can have another layer that checks whether {kau} follows a question word, whether it's in an abstraction, and whether it's on the indifferent side of {ju/u/gi'u}, and decides whether it makes sense there. It can also check whether a brivla has a sumti in a nonexistent place, whether a number string is valid, whether {ko'a} or a lervla has an antecedent, etc. phma