From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu May 13 15:43:47 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 May 2004 15:43:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.32) id 1BOOvV-000820-0i for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 May 2004 15:43:41 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 May 2004 15:43:41 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: erasure words Message-ID: <20040513224341.GF4461@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040513213804.GG16333@fysh.org> <20040513214744.GA4461@digitalkingdom.org> <20040513222637.GI16333@fysh.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040513222637.GI16333@fysh.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 7816 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 Thu, May 13, 2004 at 11:26:37PM +0100, Zefram wrote: [I followed the DNS discussion, but I have no useful response] > Robin Lee Powell wrote: > >> If a Lojban parser sees a cmavo that it doesn't know, being able to > >> tell at least whether it is an erase operator would be *very* > >> helpful. > > > >No, it wouldn't. Not in the least. The erase operators are all > >different selma'o, and are all handled completely independantly. > > We're talking at cross-purposes here. The issue is how an > *unrecognised* cmavo is handled. I completely understand that. There is no valid way to handle something when all I know is that it erases *something*. > What do you do in your parser with, say, "cei'au"? Do you accept "le > broda cei'au si brode"? I choke on it. "zo cei'au" is fine, though. jbofihe chokes on both. The official parser treats all unknown cmavo as UI (which is to say, as basically irrelevant). > >How is "lu broda SA_LIKE li'u da" == da better than "lu broda sa lu > >si da" == da? > > That's not the kind of case I had in mind, but it raises some good > points itself. Consider the thought process behind using "lu": "I'm > in a "lu" quotation; it ends with "li'u"". During the quotation, when > thinking about ending the quotation I should be thinking about "li'u", > not "lu". Sure, but having just realized that I don't want to be in a lu quotation at all, I've just changed gears, and am now thinking about what I'm trying to get rid of, which is "lu". > Also, this new operator would encourage thinking about the erasure as > "end the quotation and ignore it", rather than "delete back to the > beginning of the quotation". I prefer to think forwards, and in terms > of high-level constructs. Fair enough, but it will *only* work with lu, and possibly to. It can't work with lo'u or zoi. It seems silly to put in an eraser for only two constructs. > What I really had in mind was things like "le le nanmu ku stizu > ERASE_CONSTRUCT ku", where I want to skip over a nested construct. > This example should erase everything, back to and including the first > "le", rather than only going back to the second "le". High-level > constructs again. OK. I can see how that would be useful. > This was intended as a rather fanciful suggestion; I was more a fan of > the "erase current sumti" type operators that I suggested and that > share all of the traits I discussed above. ("le le nanmu ku stizu > ERASE_SUMTI" *can't* be done with "sa".) Not with just sa, no, but "sa le si si" will do it in my parser. I agree that that's a bit bulky, though. > But I find the generalisation quite neat. I think it's at least a > useful thought experiment in the realm of grammar-aware erase > operators. > You seem to be hostile to new erase operators because of the > complexity of implementation. Is that the case? Not at all. The implementation *is* complex, but that's not the point. I'm hostile to new erase operators because they are new; nothing more or less. Despite all of this discussion, the language is *not* actually open for change. The reasons I'm bothering are described at http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/ > Perhaps further discussion should occur when, and if, I produce a > parser that implements erasure more modularly. See my other post. I'm totally cool with you doing grammar work, but: 1. I'm already doing it, so I'm not sure what the point is, although I would *love* someone to look over my PEG grammar. and 2. I honestly don't think that you understand how hard a problem Lojban grammar is to implement. WRT point #2: John Cowan, please accept my apology; you were right. (John said the same thing to me when I started worknig on this). -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased. http://www.lojban.org/ *** loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi