From grey.havens@online.fr Wed Nov 10 09:15:01 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:15:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp-103-wednesday.noc.nerim.net ([62.4.17.103] helo=mallaury.noc.nerim.net) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1CRw3Y-0001aT-3O for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 09:14:52 -0800 Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pilot.net2.nerim.net [213.41.129.7]) by mallaury.noc.nerim.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39F5E62EC3 for ; Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:14:48 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <20041109191734.GZ20718@chain.digitalkingdom.org> References: <87828601-324C-11D9-9684-000D9329C984@online.fr> <20041109191734.GZ20718@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Apple-Mail-1--606832782" Message-Id: <224FA74B-333C-11D9-A488-000D9329C984@online.fr> From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Rapha=EBl_Poss?= Subject: [lojban] Re: Questions about the Magic Words Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 18:15:35 +0100 To: lojban-list@lojban.org X-Pgp-Agent: GPGMail 1.0.2 X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-archive-position: 8972 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: grey.havens@online.fr Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --Apple-Mail-1--606832782 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Le 9 nov. 04, =E0 20:17, Robin Lee Powell a =E9crit : > On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 01:40:25PM +0100, Rapha?l Poss wrote: >> I am now reading the Magic Words wiki page, and it actually >> challenges what I thought I previously knew about the lojban >> grammar. > > I bet. Please note that xorxes and I are discussing a completely > different version, as well. Ah. Is it on the wiki ? > I would like to know how hard you think it would be to memorize the > rules as I've listed them. > *I* for one think the rules themselves are sufficiently simple to be=20 learned easily, *but* : - the phrasing is poor and/or too complex, - it raises implicitely a lot of questions about special cases, which=20 should be provided for illustration beneath the rules. About the phrasing, I would propose to keep the formal rules with any=20 level of precision needed for them to be actually formal rules, but=20 accompany each one of 2 "summaries" : one simplified grouping rule and=20= one human-readable summary. See at the bottom of my message for an=20 example. >> I would very much appreciate if someone could enlighten me on the >> following points : >> >> 1. "zo y bu =3D=3D (zo bu) [one y ignored]" or "zo y bu =3D=3D (zo (y >> bu))" ? > > The former. If .y. wasn't ignored, the latter would be an error. > Then for any of : zoi y bu ... bu zoi y bu Rule 1 states "ignore Y except before BU" : since no quoting has been=20 done yet, Y is not ignored at this point, Rule 2 and 3 do the quoting, saying that Y is not taken into account. After rule 3, what remains of Y ? Is it embedded as some kind of=20 meta-data in the quote, or is it dropped afterwards, or what ? It is tempting to rephrase rule 1 as: - Y is always ignored after ZO or ZOI - Y is not ignored before BU - Y is ignored in all other cases But then we have a problem: zoi zoi ... zoi y bu Since the quoting is not done yet (at this point), Y is forcibly=20 ignored, changing the meaning of the phrase. I'm confused. Also, see point 3 below. >> 2. is "broda lo'u brode fa'o" grammatical ? (can we assume that >> fa'o closes all elidable terminators, even le'u ?) > > That's a parser design issue, really, but as it stands, no. Bear in > mind that le'u is *NOT* an elidable terminator, in that it is not > elidable. Therefore, since fa'o closes the input before the lo'u quoting is done,=20= the construct becomes ungrammatical. Now, wait, I can see that now fa'o can be quoted with lo'u (rule 4, has=20= it changed ?) So "broda lo'u brode fa'o le'u" is now grammatical. >> 3. what remains after "zo y bu si" ? > > An unfilled zo. Given the current rule 1, I would say "zo y". (Y was not ignored since=20= BU happened just after). > >> 4. what remains after "zoi zoi zo zoi sa zo" ? (I ask because I >> notice sa is processed before zoi) > > The stuff inside zoi is not processed as Lojban, and hence has no > selma'o, so nothing remains. But zoi was not processed at the point SA is processed (but since the=20 wiki page has changed). Now it's ok. > >> 6. I notice that fa'o is processed before zoi : what remains after >> "broda zoi zoi fa'o" ? (is the quote automatically closed, or does >> the sumti become ungrammatical ?) > > Neither; the fa'o is quoted by being inside a zoi construction. > > Clearly, zoi should be closer to the top of the list. Now that it is, things have become saner. Thanks :) Now, more questions ! Point 8. what happens if the word after SA does not appear before at all=20 (never since the beginning of the text) ? Is the erasing performed, or=20= ignored ? What remains ? Especially, what remains after : - broda sa su - broda sa sa - broda su brode sa su - zo sa broda sa sa Ignoring it would allow cancelling an erasure in progress. For=20 instance, if I start to utter "broda sa ..." and I want to cancel the=20 erasure, I could continue with "... sa si si" (since no sa could have=20 remained from before that way) Point 9. What remains after : pa zoi pa ... pa sa pa (or, is the ZOI delimiter valid as a limit for "sa" ?) Point 10. My current knowledge of lojban tells me that : la'e lu zo zo li'u means "the word 'zo'". Since nothing prevents lo'u...le'u from quoting correct text, I=20 assume that "la'e lo'u zo zo le'u" has the same meaning. However, rule 5 makes a special case for "zo le'u" : la'e lu zo le'u li'u -> the word "le'u" la'e lo'u zo le'u le'u -> ??? Point 11. I see that ZOI is processed before ZO: "zo zoi ti ta ti =3D=3D zo (zoi ti ta ti)" ? Point 12. SA is processed after LOhU ... LEhU, so I would assume that when we=20= have : broda lo'u sa broda le'u nothing is erased. (Proper erasing with "broda lo'u le'u sa broda", right ?) Now, my example rephrasing for the rules: 1a: .Y. (not followed by BU) -> whitespace 1b: (the formal rule is OK) 1c. After this rule, no .Y. remains for consideration except where=20 there is Y+BU. 2a: ZOI (ignore Y) (whatever) ... (whatever) -> quote with 4 "words" ZOI (ignore Y) SI -> whitespace ZOI (ignore Y) SA ... -> whitespace ZOI (ignore Y) SU -> whitespace 2b: Unless immediately erased with SI, SA or SU, ZOI groups with the=20 following word (delimiter), text and delimiter again. The entire group=20= has 4 parts erasable by SI. 2c. After this rule, ZOI occurences have lost their value and have been=20= grouped as quotes (together with the delimiters and content) and/or=20 erased. 3a. ZO (anything) -> quote with 2 "words" 3b. (the formal rule is OK) 3c. After this point, ZO occurences have lost their value and have been=20= grouped as quotes. 4a. (anything before) FAhO-not-in-quote -> end of text 4b. (the formal rule is OK) 4c. After this point, FAhO occurences have lost their value, and=20 everything after the first has disappeared. 5a. LOhU (lojban words) LEhU -> quote with number of lojban words=20 present in the middle + 2 5b. LOhU...LEhU quotes any string of valid lojban words, including LEhU=20= itself if prefixed with ZO. 5c. After this point, LOhU...LEhU occurences and everything in between=20= have lost their value and have been grouped as quotes. Note about 5: no need to state a special case for ZO+LEhU, since rule 3=20= has processed ZO+LEhU already. 6. (nothing to say) 7a. (whatever) (ignore Y) SI -> whitespace 7b. (the formal rule is OK) 7c. After this point, SI occurences and the word before them have been=20= erased and lost their value. Note about 7: no need to state a special case for ZO+SI, since rule 3=20 has processed ZO+SI already. 8a. (whatever X) (lojban words) SA (ignore Y) (whatever same X) ->=20 (whatever X) 8b. SA erases itself and anything that precedes up to a word of same=20 selma'o as the word that follows. 8c. After this point, SA occurences and the text before them (back to=20 and including the delimiter) have been erased and lost their value. 9a. (anything) SU -> whitespace 9b. SU erases itself and everything before it. 9c. After this point, SU occurences and the text before them have been=20= erased and lost their value. 10a. (whatever) (ignore Y and BAhE) ZEI (whatever) -> lujvo 10b. ZEI groups the word just before (except BAhE) and just after into=20= a lujvo. 10c. After this point, ZEI occurences and the thing before and after=20 them have been grouped into lujvo and lost their value. Note about 10: no need to state the special cases about ZOI, ZO, LOhU,=20= LEhU, SI, SA and SU since those have been processed by previous rules. 11a. (whatever) (ignore BAhE) BU -> lerfu 11b. BU groups with the word just before (except BAhE) into a lerfu=20 word. 11c. After this point, BU occurences and the word before them have been=20= grouped and lost their value. Note about 11: no need to state the special cases about ZOI ZO LOhU=20 LEhU SI SA SU and ZEI since those have been processed by previous=20 rules. Thanks for any answers / comments. --=20 Rapha=EBl=20= --Apple-Mail-1--606832782 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; x-mac-type=70674453; name=PGP.sig content-description: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ceci_est_une_signature_=E9lectronique_PGP?= content-disposition: inline; filename=PGP.sig content-transfer-encoding: 7bit -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFBkky718ht0zty5ysRAitPAJ9dQfl9CV2U5GAl1oqh9R9ld70hcACeNa8Q UtSfIrjULgWSLSpdJzRggnE= =y3Xs -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail-1--606832782--