>> That's correct. What makes aS different form other
> grammars is it describes a different shape; but it's
> similar in that each of the other grammars also describes
> a different shape.
> Yes, a degenerate tree. But I don't see the point of it.
I don’t think there are degenerate trees. Trees have a point, otherwise they wouldn’t be used.
>> aS has absolute expressive power, so any string from the
> dictionary is grammatical.
> I'm sorry, but to me "The what people message the from lives
God knew understand preached history" is _not_ grammatical.
Aha, maybe I made a mistake. Let’s check. Put this grammar in your CKY parser:
S -> AS | A
A -> The | what | people | message | from | lives | God | knew | understand | preached | history
Mine doesn’t give a syntax error. What parser are you using?
> The computers _says_ no such thing! Computers are machines,
not thinking, sentient beings.
So, if the Bible says “Do not deliberately kill a fellow human being” you do however deliberately kill fellow human beings because the Bible is a book, not a thinking, sentient being? And consequently _says_ no such thing? BTW it’s a line from Little Britain https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhZ2qSkJU0A
> That clearly depends on how you define grammatical. Sure,
"colorless green ideas sleep furiously" is grammatical
So it is. Not to be confused with semantics.
> The sentence is also, of course, valid aS, as defined by
you, since it is a string of words. But, I contend that
while "The what people message the from lives God knew
understand preached history" may be valid aS, it is neither
What on earth has this got to do with English?
>> In this aS is different because the meaning of each
> sentence in the language is defined the same way. If you
> go back to the video,
> you see how aS gives you the instruction of how to draw
> the semantic representation graph.
> No - what I see on the video is confusing overlap of red
ovals on a diagram which bears _no _relationship to the
answer you gave on 6th March:
[-------------------------- quote ----------------------]
Here's a mini-proof - the following string is a sentence
generated by aS. Please copy-paste the command to
As you see, the grammar generates the desired string or any
other string you could ever give.
[------------------------ unquote ----------------------]
Looks good to me. They’re based on the same syntactic structure. This example here may not be valid semantically because some symbols don’t seem like well-defined semantemes. Also, it’s awfully deep. But the structure is always consistent - mathematical.
>> It is basically a hierarchical tree where each hyponode
> is semantically part of its hyperonode. It's the very
> basic structure which is the basis of set theory. You
> can use a Venn diagram instead of a tree, as is done in
> figure 18 in http://lingbuzz.auf.net/lingbuzz/002821
> Please do not try to lecture me on set theory, tree
structure etc. Once you let _semantic_ considerations in
and start producing proper tress and not the degenerate one
of the graph above, you are IMHO not dealing with aS,
however you may wish to define it.
I’m not lecturing, the answer was just good. The semantic structure is defined using the same mechanism as set theory. The difference is that each circle for aS represents a structure, not a set.
>> I fear we are leagues apart. About time I got back to
> Britanese, methinks.
> Have a good time conlanging!
> Thank you. But we are still leagues apart. And did suggest
that the thread was taken off-list and discussed privately -
presumably by those to whom formal grammars are of interest.
But you insisted on presenting your video to the whole
list. Although I've now watched it through three times, I