Talk:Context-sensitive grammar

message: The article says that Chomsky invented CSG for natural languages. Are CSGs really used in linguistics? I've only seen context-free grammars (or some mild extensions) in that context.
: Yes, context-sensitive rewrite rules have been used in linguistics, but I do not know whether they are still in use today.  Rp 13:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yacc doesn't parse arbitrary context-free languages, but only LALR(1) ones.  An example of a general context-free parsing framework is ASF+SDF. Rp 13:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Natural Language? 

message: Using a grammar that contradicts the definition is highly confusing.  What is a monotonic grammar?
: I'm moving the definition to "monotonic" grammar to its own page.  It's wrong to include it here, since this page is not about classes of grammars that happen to describe the contest-sensitive languages, but about context-sensitive grammers proper.  Rp 13:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The problem with your solution lies in the clause "S -> abc". As far as "abc" terminates your recursion, the structure "aabcBC" always gets created whenever you try to use recursion. The way to go is the usage of "S -> aBC", which is totally equivalent with the grammar in the Wiki page. --AdamDi (talk) 11:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing 

message: That why AB -> BA is not type 1 grammar —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ra.ravi.rav (talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  can you please explain this textbook problem 

message: In the Turing completeness article, there is a redlink for context-dependent grammar. If that is the same thing as context-sensitive grammar, please fix the link.
Paul Foxworthy (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is context-dependent the same thing as context-sensitive? 

message: I'm not really sure what to do about that; there's more at context-sensitive language, but the two pages evolved independently so they aren't really a super-set of each other. But except for the normal forms, I'm not sure there are really any properties that are of CSGs per se but don't belong to the CSL page (too). JMP EAX (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The CFG vs CFL page have the same issue. I've started a centralized discussion at  JMP EAX (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplication of properties etc. with the CSL page 

message: Maybe I'm missing something again, but it seems to me that the "Kuroda normal form" is not really a normal form for CSG as defined by Chomsky. The first rule AB → CD doesn't seem to fit the CSG template of expanding a single non-terminal. JMP EAX (talk) 13:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kuroda normal form 

message: 3. cB \rightarrow WB   
It would be context-free if c would be a non-terminal, isn't it? -- Harp (talk) 09:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the grammar in the example a context-sensitive one? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Context-sensitive grammar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708224600/https://danielmattosroberts.com/earley/context-sensitive-earley.pdf to http://danielmattosroberts.com/earley/context-sensitive-earley.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is the 1774 COBOL programming language context sensitive? 
It seams the divisions each having specific syntax would make it contaxt sensitive. 
In the data division you can have picture defined variables having pictures clauses like:
   999.99
that defines a five digit numeric field having two decmal places. The same string in the procedure division would be a numeric constant. Other picture string would not even valid in orher divisions. Basicly each COBOL division has its own syntax. This I think makes it context sensitive in the Chomsky hierarchy.
The ENVIRONMENT division was just comments, skiped by the compilers of the day.
So having different syntax bounded by constant division name strings, i.e. terminal symbols, seams to be make a context.
I haven't studied formal linguistics. Except for reading a pdf on Chomsky's grammars I found on the web. I worked on a COBOL 74 compiler in the late 1970s. Its syntax was defined by an analytical grammar/programming language.
Steamerandy (talk) 21:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  COBOL language context sensitive?