From jjllambias@gmail.com Fri Dec 04 04:54:16 2009
Received: from mail-yx0-f202.google.com ([209.85.210.202])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <jjllambias@gmail.com>)
	id 1NGXfi-0002bt-Pp
	for lojban-beginners@lojban.org; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:54:16 -0800
Received: by yxe40 with SMTP id 40so2195226yxe.28
        for <lojban-beginners@lojban.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2009 04:53:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=73nXm2w6tNgwLW+ODX3VaKfyhXqrTdwnOcrVuWDOAb0=;
        b=Z3qPJNGtYIPP868xuo29w+ZGV/mt0/LELR3Bbpxh8WpeS+V2DZgXXSQpDlLlUfORza
         pl+Fv/gUel6qDB0U+6maHQ05fyD4Z3H0lVI4gmR9zpXD5BOiHAV3+9YoSYmx788gJpKo
         Vu41RBP8cJLa8zRheemhRt27ZDsinO5UuZsYQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type;
        b=jMUKCEncICpHQivI/+0cVPXGkL46k+PguL/O1YPoSP2qnNdCpeoyyydGh7o+JVHuF2
         Y4wvhE5ThyNBBi37ClRDf+zDQia5ytv+DPvIUmIsEVhbZl9CLc3ihk2dRx/NJflZnaP6
         culKjZhIyG4rjtBjH4dE50ykgwZM9L6+n1O+4=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.90.7.36 with SMTP id 36mr4876805agg.32.1259931238560; Fri, 04 
	Dec 2009 04:53:58 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C92ED43B-D28C-499F-9E73-BFCB45EAF6E8@choi.name>
References: <C92ED43B-D28C-499F-9E73-BFCB45EAF6E8@choi.name>
Date: Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:53:58 -0300
Message-ID: <925d17560912040453p3437d713h1fb73b017f5e2ced@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban-beginners] The /.../ operator in the Lojban EBNF grammar
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Joshua Choi <joshua@choi.name> wrote:
>  Does it have a consistent syntactic meaning across the
> grammar, or is it really case-by-case? Can it be converted into a more
> standard EBNF syntax?

It's informal. The only complete formal grammar for Lojban is the PEG
grammar, see:

http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/lojban.peg.txt

The EBNF is written in a more human-friendly way though, so the PEG
will be easier to follow once you are already familiar with the EBNF.

The PEG also goes all the way down to the phonemes:

http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20PEG%20Morphology%20Algorithm

which the EBNF doesn't do at all.

mu'o mi'e xorxes