From bpfk-list+bncCJ2UzZHuDRC4w8jlBBoEOjwoDA@googlegroups.com Sun Oct 10 13:27:52 2010 Received: from mail-ww0-f61.google.com ([74.125.82.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P52Un-0006dt-A9; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:52 -0700 Received: by wwe15 with SMTP id 15sf659522wwe.16 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=svgooICpRJxa/gaSsXbEx3CLYmbQHmRfr8lyQQ9LD6U=; b=xrAuZ3J65qtK+a0eVX73AG34bephVl8RarEmSvdYtM/sWlriSDCaIvrOmIR2mCP6n0 4woDR4NV053s9KUte44MCmto51/9dCM7DE3OUWsRdr2Ygma1FyRawwiwEeturYAX+qFz gOTN7McwWx3tVU4S5xDbWR5XZZ8BaAnmiG6Ls= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; 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:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=HzgXgqeWVrTx/dAYbpZYz03mDmlq8DSb2X/076K5l+rZGCDx16XeMbUSNx7nZqCr4k OhHR3G6Gg7gECeBdWB9D6+BrrPG9Gq3rOWLnp0Aigbff5K3nZOrgv5gD0LTdCmhG+Eez wmmkiu4cZyguVDe5LwMPxAtKTqobifRKoKCFI= Received: by 10.216.231.154 with SMTP id l26mr201154weq.9.1286742456749; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.198.162 with SMTP id v34ls1175470wen.3.p; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.181.80 with SMTP id k58mr253173wem.9.1286742456284; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.181.80 with SMTP id k58mr253172wem.9.1286742456257; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (mail-wy0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id o31si809818wej.10.2010.10.10.13.27.35; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; Received: by wyf23 with SMTP id 23so2942387wyf.34 for ; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:35 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.43.11 with SMTP id u11mr4755378wbe.200.1286742454908; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:34 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sun, 10 Oct 2010 13:27:34 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4CB21FAC.80104@lojban.org> References: <4CB0B239.50107@lojban.org> <4CB1FC05.4030108@lojban.org> <4CB21FAC.80104@lojban.org> Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 17:27:34 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= 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 74.125.82.175 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: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 5:18 PM, Robert LeChevalier wro= te: > > If it is a word in Lojban then it is part of some selma'o. =A0A few selma= 'o in > the current (YACC baseline) language are necessarily processed by a > preparser, and do not even have stated rules in the grammar. Obviously we are talking about different things by "text". What I'm talking about is the chunk of input that is valid in accordance with the formal grammar, not some other informal notion. > SEI can handle whatever we want it to handle, by definition, so long as i= t > can be stated in Lojban. =A0It is possible in SEI to state that the curre= nt > text is to be rewritten in reverse and reparsed on that basis, or any oth= er > silly rule, for that matter. I'm only talking about the "text" rule in the formal grammar. > Similarly, the limits on vocatives are whatever we deem them to be. =A0On= e can > probably come up with cases that cause problems under any rule (like what > happens if you interrupt someone's incomplete vocative or metalinguistic > statement). =A0But I suspect that could happen no matter what solution yo= u > come up with. =A0(Does Lojban have to accept a Godel's Theorem limitation= ?) Not relevant to what I'm talking about, which is the "text" rule of the formal grammar, and whether the utterances of different speakers in a conversation should normally be parsed all under one single "text" or each under a separate "text". The Lojban tradition, going at least back to your draft-lessons, is that they are to be parsed each as its own "text", and that is what makes the most sense. If you are arguing for the other view, you are the one who has to make the case for it. 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.