## 1090: "Formal Languages"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

justalurkr
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

jpk wrote:Pun on "context-free grammar".

Anyone in the Cambridge/Somerville area up for a good lynch mob? 'Cause I could whip up a few torches, no problem.

Oh, I can make time to come in from Atlanta for this party.

flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

justalurkr wrote:One of the best things about xkcd is that it helps one to identify (with great alacrity) the kind of geek one is...not.

And here I thought "formal language" meant never splitting prepositions at the end of sentences.

That's a rule I don't really pay attention to.
any pronouns
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

endolith
Posts: 229
Joined: Tue Jan 01, 2008 2:14 am UTC
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It's not an explanation, but a definition. If they started at the building blocks of formal language theory, the introduction would be far too long, and redundant across each class of grammar.

They could do better than this, though.

SerMufasa
Posts: 159
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2012 2:00 pm UTC
Location: Casterley Rock

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Even after the explanations I'm not sure I fully understand it, but that's ok. I find it funnier if I hear it in the She Blinded Me With Science voice (substituting "Grammar!" for "Science!", natch).
"Winter is Coming, Simba"

OtherRob
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2010 2:52 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

carolineee wrote:
vortighast wrote:The wiki page looks more complicated...can we get a layman's explanation?

Ok, I'll try. We all know the word "grammar" from English class. It is a set of rules that tell us how we build sentences....

Thanks. That was a really good explanation. And now I get the joke.

Garnasha
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 12:32 am UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

endolith wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It's not an explanation, but a definition. If they started at the building blocks of formal language theory, the introduction would be far too long, and redundant across each class of grammar.

They could do better than this, though.

I imagine a few xkcd readers who are more confident than I* in their understanding of the subject will rush to wikipedia any moment now and fix that.

*: Does anyone else have this strange feeling where they think they know what's correct, but it just feels wrong? I kept wanting to write "me" there, to the point where I'm not even sure "I" is even correct. I might be mixing up the rules for different languages.

nykevin
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:45 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Garnasha wrote:
endolith wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It's not an explanation, but a definition. If they started at the building blocks of formal language theory, the introduction would be far too long, and redundant across each class of grammar.

They could do better than this, though.

I imagine a few xkcd readers who are more confident than I* in their understanding of the subject will rush to wikipedia any moment now and fix that.

*: Does anyone else have this strange feeling where they think they know what's correct, but it just feels wrong? I kept wanting to write "me" there, to the point where I'm not even sure "I" is even correct. I might be mixing up the rules for different languages.

You're right, "I" is wrong since it's not the subject of the sentence (which is the first "I").

dash
Posts: 104
Joined: Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:05 am UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

carolineee wrote:For this comic, the joke is just that the word "grammar" doesn't really have a context here. Thus, it's a context free grammar

Thanks for that explanation. I'm a programmer and have used bison/yacc to generate parsers, and I couldn't unravel this "joke".
If my wife were a D&D character she'd be all 10's

TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

nykevin wrote:You're right, "I" is wrong since it's not the subject of the sentence (which is the first "I").

Uhh, no, by the usual rules "I" is correct, as it's the subject of the implicit clause ("more confident than I am").
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

airdrik
Posts: 245
Joined: Wed May 09, 2012 3:08 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

SerMufasa wrote:Even after the explanations I'm not sure I fully understand it, but that's ok. I find it funnier if I hear it in the She Blinded Me With Science voice (substituting "Grammar!" for "Science!", natch).

That's awesome!

It's syntax in motion
She turned her tender eyes to me
As deep as any statement
As sweet as any harmony
Mmm - but she blinded me with grammar
"She blinded me with grammar!"
I tripped because it's context-free

When I'm dancing close to her
"Blinding me with grammar - grammar!"
I can smell the symbols
"Blinding me with grammar - grammar!"
"Grammar!"
"Grammar!"

Rotherian
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

flicky1991 wrote:
justalurkr wrote:One of the best things about xkcd is that it helps one to identify (with great alacrity) the kind of geek one is...not.

And here I thought "formal language" meant never splitting prepositions at the end of sentences.

That's a rule I don't really pay attention to.

Me either. But that is mostly because I've never heard of a rule applying to splitting prepositions at the end of a sentence.

I mean, I've heard of a rule about not splitting infinitives. I've also heard of a rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition. But I've never heard of a rule specifically about not splitting prepositions at the end of sentences. (Especially since most of the prepositions are single words - such as to, from, at, with, and others).
There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.
Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.

thenonsequitur
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

I was a linguistics major in college, a programmer today, and fully aware of context-free grammars and what they are. And I *still* somehow didn't get this joke until it was explained. Guess I was looking for something deeper than a pun (though I do love me a good groan-worthy pun!).

Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not splitting infinitives. I've also heard of a rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

I might add that both these so-called rules are actually not based on real usage; they aren't part of any natural "formal" register. Both these rules are hold-overs from old poorly-conceived prescriptivist teachings of the past, and are now primarily just tools in a non-educated grammar-nazi's repertoire.

TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
nykevin wrote:You're right, "I" is wrong since it's not the subject of the sentence (which is the first "I").

Uhh, no, by the usual rules "I" is correct, as it's the subject of the implicit clause ("more confident than I am").

Actually, both "I" (nominative) and "me" (accusative) are highly attested in that context (and have been for ~500 years), and in fact accusative is more common today. The reason "I" is okay is, as TheGrammarBolshevik points out, because "than" can be considered a conjunction and "I" would be the subject of the implicit conjoined clause. "Me" is okay too, because "than" can equally-validly be considered a preposition where "me" is the object of the preposition. Both forms are considered standard, and both are correct. Here's a good summary for those of interested: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/th ... an-me.aspx
Last edited by thenonsequitur on Fri Aug 03, 2012 4:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

San Fran Sam
Posts: 228
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:54 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Well, my first thought was of David Niven at the 1974 Academy Awards.

flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

thenonsequitur wrote:
Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not splitting infinitives. I've also heard of a rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

I might add that both these so-called rules are actually not based on real usage; they aren't part of any natural "formal" register. Both these rules are hold-overs from old poorly-conceived prescriptivist teachings of the past, and are now primarily just tools in a non-educated grammar-nazi's repertoire.

I agree with you except for "so-called rules" - they're rules, even if we choose not to obey them.
any pronouns
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

evac156
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

HonoreDB wrote:Scaling Everest was, by far, the most amazing and transformative experience of my life.

And if you scale it by this:

| 0.001 1 1 |
| 1 0.001 1 |
| 1 1 0.001 |

It would then be much easier to climb.

(Sorry, can't see how to do a table/matrix in this markup.)

(Might need to be an old-school graphics geek to get this. )

Edit: Gack! Did this in 2D the first time. Now that would make a hard climb.
Last edited by evac156 on Fri Aug 03, 2012 6:21 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Garnasha wrote:
endolith wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:It's not an explanation, but a definition. If they started at the building blocks of formal language theory, the introduction would be far too long, and redundant across each class of grammar.

They could do better than this, though.

I imagine a few xkcd readers who are more confident than I* in their understanding of the subject will rush to wikipedia any moment now and fix that.

*: Does anyone else have this strange feeling where they think they know what's correct, but it just feels wrong? I kept wanting to write "me" there, to the point where I'm not even sure "I" is even correct. I might be mixing up the rules for different languages.

Just say "I imagine a few xkcd readers who are more confident than I am".
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

justalurkr
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2012 3:12 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

thenonsequitur wrote:I was a linguistics major in college, a programmer today, and fully aware of context-free grammars and what they are. And I *still* somehow didn't get this joke until it was explained. Guess I was looking for something deeper than a pun (though I do love me a good groan-worthy pun!).

Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not splitting infinitives. I've also heard of a rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

I might add that both these so-called rules are actually not based on real usage; they aren't part of any natural "formal" register. Both these rules are hold-overs from old poorly-conceived prescriptivist teachings of the past, and are now primarily just tools in a non-educated grammar-nazi's repertoire.

Which is why I mash them up to poke at people who engage in discussions of prescriptive v. descriptive. I get some of the best expressions out of people that way that I usually only do it in person so I can watch. Also, random usage of these two rules in written and verbal communications at work has scored an appalling number of mentions in my performance appraisals of my "excellent" or "outstanding" verbal and written communications skills.

Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

As a computer science lecturer who took linguistics as a minor in grad school, I am deeply embarrassed that I had to look at this thread to get the joke.

It's all linguistics fault, dammit.

Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11128
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

It is ok. The joke really needs something to help explain it. A surrounding environment that would make it make sense. Without that, how are we to understand the joke?
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Yakk wrote:It is ok. The joke really needs something to help explain it. A surrounding environment that would make it make sense. Without that, how are we to understand the joke?

*puts a bag over Yakk's head and drags him away*

Nothing to see here folks, carry on.

Edit: I explained it to my gf, she said "the guy should have said 'THE GRAMMARIANS ARE COMING', ha ha", and was surprised when I actually laughed at it.
mu

Le_Forgeron
Posts: 3
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:13 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Break through at the symposium about formal langages...
context free grammar.

Don't forget the start of the story!

Rotherian
Posts: 164
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2011 1:57 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

thenonsequitur wrote:I was a linguistics major in college, a programmer today, and fully aware of context-free grammars and what they are. And I *still* somehow didn't get this joke until it was explained. Guess I was looking for something deeper than a pun (though I do love me a good groan-worthy pun!).

Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not splitting infinitives. I've also heard of a rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

I might add that both these so-called rules are actually not based on real usage; they aren't part of any natural "formal" register. Both these rules are hold-overs from old poorly-conceived prescriptivist teachings of the past, and are now primarily just tools in a non-educated grammar-nazi's repertoire.

Emphasis mine. Although I am generally guilty of ignoring the rule about split infinitives, I understand that the rule exists, and my ignoring it isn't out of, well, ignorance. (Sheer obstinance is a more likely culprit.) I do, however, usually adhere to the rule that precludes the usage of prepositions at the end of a sentence, even during verbal communication. In written conversation, I normally just edit the sentence to avoid it - either by using "of which/whom/etc." or by re-wording it to avoid having it sound contrived.

As such, my usage is no less real than any other person's usage.

Let's explore a completely different, but (in my opinion) related, concept. Txt-ese and l33t/7334-speak are both real usages of language. I don't agree with those usages, but that doesn't make them any less real. (My disagreement with the usage of txt-ese stems more from the fact that the numbers that commonly replace words are homophones of the words that the numbers represent. So 2day, to me, represents twoday, not today.) Essentially, it boils down to personal preference.

Likewise, adherance to grammar rules (or conversely, defiance of grammar rules) outside of academia is largely a matter of personal preference.
There are two general categories of opinion: regular opinions and informed opinions.
Please do not argue with me unless your opinion falls into the latter category.

thenonsequitur
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Rotherian wrote:Although I am generally guilty of ignoring the rule about split infinitives, I understand that the rule exists, and my ignoring it isn't out of, well, ignorance. (Sheer obstinance is a more likely culprit.) I do, however, usually adhere to the rule that precludes the usage of prepositions at the end of a sentence, even during verbal communication. In written conversation, I normally just edit the sentence to avoid it - either by using "of which/whom/etc." or by re-wording it to avoid having it sound contrived.

As such, my usage is no less real than any other person's usage.

Let's explore a completely different, but (in my opinion) related, concept. Txt-ese and l33t/7334-speak are both real usages of language. I don't agree with those usages, but that doesn't make them any less real. (My disagreement with the usage of txt-ese stems more from the fact that the numbers that commonly replace words are homophones of the words that the numbers represent. So 2day, to me, represents twoday, not today.) Essentially, it boils down to personal preference.

Likewise, adherance to grammar rules (or conversely, defiance of grammar rules) outside of academia is largely a matter of personal preference.

Since my premises are unwavering, I must hereafter declare you to be imaginary!

On a more serious note, you may follow one of those rules, but in that case you are an exception. When I say "real usage" I'm don't mean "anything spoken or written anywhere by anybody". "Usage", as linguistic jargon, refers to the way people under normal circumstances spontaneously produce natural language. Under that definition, "real usage" does not include following wholly-artificial rules -- prescriptions from hundreds of years ago based on poor analogies to Latin rather than by examining the way people actually use language. And while you may believe otherwise, I have the entire field of linguistics behind me in saying that the no-split-infinitives and the no-postposition-prepositions rules are wholly-artificial. It takes willful training to follow either of these rules, and such usage is not representative of natural usage. If you want a reference, here's a good place to start:

http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3407

As far as Txt-ese and 1337-speak, those are more orthographic phenomena and thus are at most tangential to the discussion about syntax. But in any case, there is no doubt that these are absolutely real, and I would never claim otherwise.
Last edited by thenonsequitur on Fri Aug 03, 2012 9:25 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

To fair be, it is rather awkward to split one's infinitives too widely. "To boldly go where no-one has gone before" sounds fine, but "to boldly, courageously, doughtily and in a stalwart manner go where no-one has gone before" is a bit difficult to parse.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

thenonsequitur
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Yes, it is definitely awkward to widely, long-windedly, and with complete disregard to structural elegance split one's infinitives.

bmonk
Posts: 662
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:14 pm UTC
Location: Schitzoed in the OTT between the 2100s and the late 900s. Hoping for singularity.

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

A dangling preposition is a construction you should never end with. (This is famously something up with which Winston Churchill would not put.)

If any word is improper at the end of a sentence, a linking verb is.

To ignorantly split an infinitive, even in English where to often split infinitives is allowed is a practice to religiously avoid.
Having become a Wizard on n.p. 2183, the Yellow Piggy retroactively appointed his honorable self a Temporal Wizardly Piggy on n.p.1488, not to be effective until n.p. 2183, thereby avoiding a partial temporal paradox. Since he couldn't afford two philosophical PhDs to rule on the title.

evac156
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2012 4:14 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Trickster wrote:As a computer science lecturer who took linguistics as a minor in grad school, I am deeply embarrassed that I had to look at this thread to get the joke.

It's all linguistics fault, dammit.

You were a minor, in grad school, when you took linguistics? Some kind of child prodigy?

Yosarian2
Posts: 29
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2011 9:28 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

flicky1991 wrote:
thenonsequitur wrote:
Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not splitting infinitives. I've also heard of a rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

I might add that both these so-called rules are actually not based on real usage; they aren't part of any natural "formal" register. Both these rules are hold-overs from old poorly-conceived prescriptivist teachings of the past, and are now primarily just tools in a non-educated grammar-nazi's repertoire.

I agree with you except for "so-called rules" - they're rules, even if we choose not to obey them.

They're not actually rules; they're just something that were written into the famous grammer book "elements of style" in 1918, and they weren't even right when that book was written. Ending a sentence with prepositions and using split infinitives has in fact been correct grammar in English for hundreds of years, at least since Shakespeare, and it still is. The problem is that several generations of over-enthusiastic English teachers and newspaper editors have mistakenly taken that book as gospel and tried to enforce the bad rules onto students and writers, and has done a lot of harm to the English language in the process.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Yosarian2 wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:
thenonsequitur wrote:
Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not [url=http://en.wikipedia.org
They're not actually rules; they're just something that were written into the famous grammer book "elements of style" in 1918

I've been hearing this in the last year or two, that they originate in Strunk - mostly from Strunk-bashers.
I was always under the impression that the schoolamarmish prohibitions on split infinitives and final prepositions were rather older than that. Wikipedia cites a source placing the split infinitive prohibition "in the 19th century" - if that's true, then Strunk's off the hook on that one. A bit of searching finds sources debunking the "old myth" that prepositions must precede the words they are associated with (!), and therefore cannot end a phrase - one of them in 1928. Ten years is a very short time to build up an "old myth", so I suspect that once again, Elements of Style is not to blame, and these both go back to at least the early 19th century and possibly earlier.

I agree entirely, of course, that they are not rules of grammar in the sense that "you can't raise across a trace" is a rule of grammar.

thenonsequitur
Posts: 17
Joined: Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Strunk & White did an important part in popularizing it, but it was John Dryden who set the ball rolling in 1672.

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/language ... 04454.html

hotaru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:54 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

evac156 wrote:And if you scale it by this:

| 0.001 1 1 |
| 1 0.001 1 |
| 1 1 0.001 |

It would then be much easier to climb.

(Sorry, can't see how to do a table/matrix in this markup.)

$\begin{bmatrix} 0.001 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 0.001 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & 0.001 \end{bmatrix}$

Code: Select all

factorial = product . enumFromTo 1isPrime n = factorial (n - 1) mod n == n - 1

Mirkwood
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 06, 2010 9:10 am UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

I interpreted the comic entirely differently and still found it hilarious.

See, I thought the convention on "formal languages" was referring to the use of formal speech and whatnot, with a lot of prescriptivist rules about how to use it. The joke in the alt text is funny because so-called "grammar nazis" often insist on the use of formal "rules" in informal situations, i.e. they don't recognize that the "correctness" of language depends on the context.

Futilitarian
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 2:03 am UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

I joined the forum because the alt text of the comic really raised my hackles. The "Grammar!" is context-sensitive, not context-free, since it's the context of the the Formal Languages Symposium that makes the pun work.

So while the grammar is context-sensitive, my hackles are surely oversensitive.

Trickster
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 5:56 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

evac156 wrote:You were a minor, in grad school, when you took linguistics? Some kind of child prodigy?

In my grad school program we were allowed to take one extra-disciplinary minor area of focus in coursework. The requirement was one major area and two minor areas. One of the minors was linguistics.

Sorry if that was confusing. Academia loves to reuse terminology for nonstandard purposes, just to piss off all the mathematicians I suspect.

Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Trickster wrote:
evac156 wrote:You were a minor, in grad school, when you took linguistics? Some kind of child prodigy?

In my grad school program we were allowed to take one extra-disciplinary minor area of focus in coursework. The requirement was one major area and two minor areas. One of the minors was linguistics.

Sorry if that was confusing. Academia loves to reuse terminology for nonstandard purposes, just to piss off all the mathematicians I suspect.

mu

flicky1991
Like in Cinderella?
Posts: 778
Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:36 pm UTC
Location: London

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

Yosarian2 wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:
thenonsequitur wrote:
Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not splitting infinitives. I've also heard of a rule about not ending a sentence with a preposition.

I might add that both these so-called rules are actually not based on real usage; they aren't part of any natural "formal" register. Both these rules are hold-overs from old poorly-conceived prescriptivist teachings of the past, and are now primarily just tools in a non-educated grammar-nazi's repertoire.

I agree with you except for "so-called rules" - they're rules, even if we choose not to obey them.

They're not actually rules; they're just something that were written into the famous grammer book "elements of style" in 1918, and they weren't even right when that book was written. Ending a sentence with prepositions and using split infinitives has in fact been correct grammar in English for hundreds of years, at least since Shakespeare, and it still is. The problem is that several generations of over-enthusiastic English teachers and newspaper editors have mistakenly taken that book as gospel and tried to enforce the bad rules onto students and writers, and has done a lot of harm to the English language in the process.

I agree that they're invalid. I agree we don't have to use them. I agree they don't correspond to actual usage. But they are rules.

If I say "everyone has to spit after saying the word 'suit'", then that's a rule. I doubt anyone will ever obey it, and most people seeing this post will probably forget it. But, in its own way, it is still a rule.
any pronouns
----
Forum Games Discord
(tell me if link doesn't work)

Flumble
Yes Man
Posts: 2249
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2012 9:35 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

evac156 wrote:
HonoreDB wrote:Scaling Everest was, by far, the most amazing and transformative experience of my life.

And if you scale it by this:

| 0.001 1 1 |
| 1 0.001 1 |
| 1 1 0.001 |

It would then be much easier to climb.

Just to get this clear: you suggest to scale Everest's height to 0.001 its height plus 1 part its length plus 1 part its width? You monster
I presume you meant this matrix:
$\begin{bmatrix} 0.001 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & 0.001 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0.001 \end{bmatrix}$
carolineee wrote:For this comic, the joke is just that the word "grammar" doesn't really have a context here. Thus, it's a context free grammar

Thank you for explainin the comic-only joke. IIRC Randall never makes a comic in which the joke relies on the alt-text.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

flicky1991 wrote:
Yosarian2 wrote:
flicky1991 wrote:
thenonsequitur wrote:
Rotherian wrote:I've heard of a rule about not
I agree that they're invalid. I agree we don't have to use them. I agree they don't correspond to actual usage. But they are rules.

If I say "everyone has to spit after saying the word 'suit'", then that's a rule. I doubt anyone will ever obey it, and most people seeing this post will probably forget it. But, in its own way, it is still a rule.

They're "rules", but they're not rules of grammar in the linguistic sense, more rules of politeness. They're rules in the sense that "utter the locally appropriate incantory phrase after another person sneezes in your vicinity" is a rule: it governs a linguistic utterance, but there's nothing about it that has anything to do with language, only behavior. They're not rules in the sense of the rules governing cliticization of "not" to "n't" are - these are the rules that tell us that
1) "I can't walk across the street if I want to"
must mean
2) "I am not able/allowed to walk across the street even if I wish to"
and can never mean
3)"I am allowed to not walk across the street if I so choose".

Clear now? There are rules, and rules. Rules about splitting infinitives are rules, but not rules of language.

Max™
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2012 4:21 am UTC
Location: mu

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

So there are ruuruuus?
mu

Sn0zz
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 2:43 pm UTC

### Re: 1090: "Formal Languages"

That's one of the reasons I love XKCD (and the forum) so much: it tickles my inner geek, and when I don't get it, I learn stuff by finding out or reading the forums.