Received: from mail-ee0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]:38204)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDt3Nf3BBoEtXtx7Q@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1ReTRk-0008Ui-3i; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:46 -0800
Received: by eekc4 with SMTP id c4sf7833889eek.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:32 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender
         :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list
         :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender
         :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=g+yzl/5V8CXfGSIeCRGrEz8SJZdjlmzqzfv+8850vKI=;
        b=W4qeiRbEJ6oRCBRrn8jiAK/dy0TvQ1j3QC6erYUgMew/TLWhpRn6+wSEhFGdCkfOlW
         ev6DqINSGXF8DPVvi9/0xuogue0lPWoLO+nNe3kPQqRARVOmFB+j5cbPPRnctBQCDpBB
         JRTqeLZRH+Y49LuxKWLD2iRo2wKahMRyjHd/M=
Received: by 10.204.154.68 with SMTP id n4mr2688882bkw.15.1324740205782;
        Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:25 -0800 (PST)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.204.130.207 with SMTP id u15ls41996402bks.0.gmail; Sat, 24 Dec
 2011 07:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.145.80 with SMTP id c16mr749658bkv.2.1324740205016;
        Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.204.145.80 with SMTP id c16mr749657bkv.2.1324740205001;
        Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:25 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com (mail-lpp01m010-f53.google.com [209.85.215.53])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id g19si14399049bkg.2.2011.12.24.07.23.24
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.53;
Received: by lagr15 with SMTP id r15so4545804lag.12
        for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:24 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.152.123.75 with SMTP id ly11mr7577782lab.32.1324740204606;
 Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.152.5.105 with HTTP; Sat, 24 Dec 2011 07:23:24 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <20111224001817.GA25591@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20111223175808.GH23459@stodi.digitalkingdom.org>
	<20111223182546.GB27391@mercury.ccil.org>
	<CAO7tK2f3DnQx+Q7bCs8fRrSm=b+AxHmHAJ+JwrMHst0G1ficQA@mail.gmail.com>
	<20111224001817.GA25591@mercury.ccil.org>
Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 12:23:24 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cdZZxCaZtb0LP185GTRH09z9opQxO9RDiB9O6ajEL_WA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] Can we drop the fore tanru cmavo?
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en_US>
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

On Fri, Dec 23, 2011 at 9:18 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
>
> Well, yes, but zei, bu, mei are handled by the pre-YACC portion of the
> official parser, so they aren't going to be easy to understand in complex
> cases. =A0(In hindsight, we should have made MEI a prefix as gua\spi does=
.)

I'm not sure about that "so" there. I don't think being handled by the
YACC or the non-YACC portion of the parser is that much correlated
with ease of understanding.

Also, consider:

(1) mi prami ko'a .e ko'e .e ko'i .e ko'o .e ko'u .e fo'a .e fo'e .e
fo'i .e fo'o na.e fo'u

You don't need more than one word lookahead for (syntactic) parsing of
that, but you don't achieve (semantic) understanding until you reach
the end. Compare with its forethought version:

(2)  mi prami ge nai ge ge ge ge ge ge ge ge ko'a gi ko'e gi ko'i gi
ko'o gi ko'u gi fo'a gi fo'e gi fo'i gi fo'o gi fo'u

(1) is easy to produce, and not too hard to understand. (2) is hard to
produce (it's easy to lose count of the "ge"s) and probably even
harder to understand. Yet the one that requires long lookahead (for
semantic understanding) is (1), not (2).

So I have to dispute the assumption that the one-word lookahead
restriction on the YACC portion of the official parser has any
relevance to the ease or difficulty of human processing of the
language.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l=
ist?hl=3Den.