[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
Jordan: > 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" I'm using a different sense of the word grammar, the sense that is applied to human language by the academic discipline devoted to the study of human language. In linguistics, a 'formal grammar' is just that, a formal grammar, and not a pseudogrammar like Lojban's. As we have said before on this list, the thing that Lojban (and computer languages, I gather) call a 'grammar', is (or at least was) in linguistics called a 'grammaticality checker'. > > 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. I wouldn't dream of making any sort of claim about a programming language -- I restrict my claims to human languages. The former is your area of expertise, the latter is mine. My contribution to the debate is premised on the idea that Lojban is a human language. > 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 This formal grammar has no function except to give the thumbs up or down to a string of words. It is therefore redundant -- it has no function as an ingredient of a human language. What human languages need are grammars that map between sound and meaning, so they can be used for encoding and decoding. I only advocate ignoring the pseudogrammar when considering Lojban as a human language. That doesn't prevent you taking pleasure in the pseudogrammar when you consider it as a programming language, or whatever. --And.