From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Apr 04 13:17:30 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 04 Apr 2004 13:17:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BAE3Y-0004o7-Qh for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2004 13:17:24 -0700 Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 13:17:24 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] (arguable) jbofi'e bug: mi ca'o tai klaku Message-ID: <20040404201724.GG11794@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 7424 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 jbofihe does not accept mi ca'o tai klaku It turns out that whether one accepts this as a jbofihe bug or not depends on what one thinks of treading "mo'ini'a mo'ini'a" as "mo'ini'a ku mo'ini'a ku", because this is exactly the same situation: the other two parsers see the example above as "mi ca'o ku tai klaku". I see nothing in any of the grammars that in any way indicates that that interpretation is in error, so unless and until someone shows that the "adding ku to sumtcita when doing so is the only way to get a successful parse" interpretation of KU as an elidable terminator is wrong, I'm taking that behaviour as being the current, grammar.300 baselined standard. Hence, not doing so is a bug in jbofihe. -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