From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon Mar 29 12:01:05 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:01:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30)
	id 1B82wN-0005gP-MC
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:00:59 -0800
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:00:59 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1)
Message-ID: <20040329200059.GR6569@digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040329070110.GO6569@digitalkingdom.org> <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 7391
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 07:09:55AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Robin Lee Powell scripsit:
> 
> > Am I correct in my belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong
> > with accepting the first case, given the infinite lookahead required
> > to realize that the remainder is a gek-sentence and that the pu
> > *must* end immediately?
> 
> I'm a little cautious about totally identifying "pu" and "pu ku"
> semantically, despite the expansive claims of the Red Book on the
> subject, because I do not know what to do when the tense involves a
> -roi quantification.

Heh.  Too late:

da poi cribe roroi xagji
({da <poi [cribe ({<ro roi> KU} VAU)] KU'O>} {xagji VAU})

The official parser sticks a KU in there.  The other ones:

da poi cribe roroiku zo'u da xagji
({<da [poi (cribe {<[ro roi] ku> VAU}) KU'O]> zo'u} {da <xagji VAU>})

roroiku da poi cribe zo'u da xagji
({<[(ro roi) ku] [da (poi {cribe VAU} KU'O)]> zo'u} {da <xagji VAU>})

roroi xagji fa da poi cribe
({<ro roi> xagji} {<fa [da (poi {cribe VAU} KU'O)]> VAU})

> Consider these four sentences:
> 
> 1)	da poi cribe roroiku zo'u da xagji
> 2)	roroiku da poi cribe zo'u da xagji
> 3)	da poi cribe roroi xagji
> 4)	roroi xagji fa da poi cribe
> 
> There is no doubt that 1 means there's a bear that's always hungry
> (false) and that 2 means there's always a hungry bear somewhere
> (true), and that 4 is the same as 2.  The question is, is 3 the same
> as 2 or the same as 1? 

I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand ordering issues well at all.
Given the parse that the official parser gives up at the top, which is
true, or does that even affect anything?

> Sorry not to be more helpful.

Plenty fine to me.  You've been doing exactly what I've been looking
for.  Thank you.

-Robin

-- 
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***   I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies."  -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/             ***              .i cimo'o prali .ui