[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 01:56:00AM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> Speaking as a grammarian, the current debate about the 'grammar'
> of NAI strikes me as a waste of effort. A grammar of a language
> defines a mapping between sound and meaning. The so-called
> 'grammar' of Lojban does not do that; it is a pseudogrammar
[...]
s/pseudo/formal/
A grammar of a language maps between symbols and the possible
sentences in the grammar.
Perhaps you're just using a different (less formal) sense of the
word "grammar".
> It strikes me as silly to rule out a potentially meaningul string
> just because the pseudogrammar prohibits it, given that the
[...]
By definition any sentence which is not valid according to the
formal grammar is simply not a sentence in the language.
I'd love to see you making this kind of bullshit claim about a
language like C++, btw. How about writing a compiler which understands
things without the formal type 2 grammar definition?
> I would suggest that we simply ignore the pseudogrammar, both in
> usage and in the BF. There's no point making changes to it, because
> it does not actually play any role in defining the language,
> except to the extent that people allow their usage to be affected
> by its prescriptions. And the more fool they who do allow their
> usage to be affected in so arbitrary a way.
Wtf.
The single coolest thing about lojban is that it has a formal grammar
and an unambiguous morphology. No other conlang does this (probably
because the inventors of other conlangs don't understand it). I
don't understand why you would advocate sacking what is *by* *far*
the best feature.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binjZ7So_OIjE.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped