Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.215 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.215;
Message-ID: <51F15A4D.3030805@lojban.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2013 13:03:09 -0400
From: "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojban.org>
Organization: The Logical Language Group, Inc.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:13.0) Gecko/20120614 Thunderbird/13.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] MEX ROI, MEX MOI, MEX MAI
References: <4Hk11m02656Cr6M01Hk2BG>
In-Reply-To: <4Hk11m02656Cr6M01Hk2BG>
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.0
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

Ian Johnson wrote:
> Today we found that you can't use MEX with ROI, MOI, or MAI, even in the
> PEG. camxes treats a closed MEX (e.g. {vei mo'e ko'a [te'u ve'o]} as a
> "quantifier", distinct from PA* (i.e. PA* = PA | PA PA*), which it calls
> a "number". With MOI we have the YACC-friendly hack "ME LI MEX MOI",
> which still cooperates with the PEG, but as best I can tell there is no
> such hack for ROI and MAI.
>
> Would anything go wrong if MEX ROI, MEX MOI, and MEX MAI were made
> allowed in the PEG? If not, can we get this into camxes?

I don't know anything about the PEG grammar (or camxes), but for YACC 
and the official grammar, there is a fundamental problem.  ROI is 
defined and used solely in the "preparser" that constructs strings of 
cmavo into tenses.

MEX is defined at the full grammar level, and has delimited recursive 
components that in theory could include pretty much the whole grammar 
(not that I think anyone uses such functionality).

It might be possible to add some rules to expand the set of cmavo 
strings that the preparser would accept for ROI, but it would have to be 
done carefully (IIRC, we had a bear of a time getting logical tense 
compounds to work because of FIHO), and it wouldn't include most of MEX.

I believe that MAI is handled in the UI "grammar", and hence is even 
pre- preparser

MOI on the other hand is already tied to MEX at the full grammar level. 
  So I am not sure what it means to say that you cannot use MEX with 
MOI.  Almost anything can be used with MOI if you first turn it into a 
sumti, and then apply a ME conversion to that sumti.  You can of course 
turn a MEX into a sumti using LI, so "meli MEX" with appropriate 
terminators should work with MOI.  I just tried it, and you need either 
a lo'o or a me'u to terminate the li/me construct before the moi.

-- 
Bob LeChevalier    lojbab@lojban.org    www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.