From philip.newton@gmail.com Sat Jul 24 00:40:44 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:40:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.170.205] helo=mproxy.gmail.com) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BoH93-0004gd-AD for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:40:37 -0700 Received: by mproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m68so36605rne for ; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.38.89.38 with SMTP id m38mr98104rnb; Sat, 24 Jul 2004 00:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <537d06d004072400405c1e1ab@mail.gmail.com> Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2004 09:40:06 +0200 From: Philip Newton To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Projects In-Reply-To: <20040723203819.60265.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII References: <20040723203819.60265.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> X-archive-position: 8314 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: philip.newton@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list reverendzow wrote: > > > Additionally, I am finding a need for a schematically > > > defined syntax for Lojban. > > > > Could you expand a bit more on what you mean by that? > > Essentially, this is a series of structural definitions like: > > a bridi is one of the following: > * a sumti, followed by a selbri, followed by 0-4 sumti, depending > on which selbri is used > * a sumti, followed by {se|te|ve|xe}, followed by a selbri, followed > by 0-4 sumti, depending on which selbri is used > * etc. Couldn't you use the current grammar, either in YACC or BNF form? It pretty much says how a legal utterance can be composed. Also note that a bridi needn't be sumti + selbri + 0*sumti; the sumti can come in any order, with the proviso (AIUI) that if all sumti occur after the selbri, counting starts at x2 rather than x1. So {mi le zarci le zdani cu klama} means the same as {mi cu klama le zarci le zdani} or {mi le zarci cu klama le zdani}, or even {klama le zarci fa mi le zdani}. Also, the grammar (AIUI, again) doesn't constrain how many sumti can be used depending on the selbri - {mi blanu le zdanu le ckule} is grammatical, though I don't think a meaning can be interpreted from it since {blanu} only has one tersu'i. > > Can you then form a lujvo by doing gismuzeigismu? Either way, > > I feel I'll need some clarification on the formation of lujvo. You mean {gismu zei gismu} (three words, not one)? Then yes (as I understand it). That is, {broda zei brode} is the same as {rodbo'e} for all {broda} and {brode}. mu'o mi'e .filip. -- Philip Newton