[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 02:56:00AM +0100, And Rosta wrote:
> 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'.
Since the terminology comes from Chomsky, and Chomsky is a linguist,
I would have to respectfully suggest that at least two senses of
the word "grammar" exist in linguistics.
How long ago did you go to school?
> > > 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.
[...]
There's no difference. Languages are languages (strings of symbols,
presumably with meaning).
--
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:
binmQkboGqUS5.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped