[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
And Rosta scripsit: > In linguistics, a 'formal grammar' > is just that, a formal grammar, and not a pseudogrammar like > Lojban's. Under the definition of "formal theory" used by logicians, the set of linguistic theories that instantiate it is precisely zero. > 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's rather more than that, And. It also produces a parse tree, if not necessarily a deep semantic one. -- John Cowan jcowan@hidden.email www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com "The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague." --Edsger Dijkstra