From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jan 28 11:28:22 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:28:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.34)
	id 1Cubmx-0005J6-Bk
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:28:15 -0800
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:28:15 -0800
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: Opinions, please: SA by structure
Message-ID: <20050128192815.GV20235@chain.digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0501211003270.3619@hive.cec.wustl.edu> <20050122151208.56261.qmail@web41907.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20050122151208.56261.qmail@web41907.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.6+20040907i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 9367
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

All usages in this thread have been verified in my current version,
unless I specifically state otherwise.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 07:12:08AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > 3) What happens if you try to back out a construct that hasn't
> > actually occurred?  {.i casnu sa mi}, for instance.
> 
> That would erase everything, I would say. 

No solution to this is currently implemented.  Opinions welcome.

> > 6) In general, using a structural approach instead of a strictly
> > word-form approach worries me in the presence of grammatical
> > errors, and correcting errors is what {sa} and friends are all
> > about. 

{sa} can still be used to correct grammatical errors.  {mi klama co
co co sa do klama} becomes {do klama}.  Given "START STUFF SA
STRUCT", where START is a valid starter word for STRUCT, only the
things before START (exclusive) and after STRUCT (inclusive) must be
grammatical.

> > Specifically, I wonder whether you could confuse the parser
> > enough that you couldn't get it to replace what you want.  {mi
> > nelci le .djan. sa la .djan.}  But *{le .djan.} isn't
> > grammatical, so will we be able to Do the Right Thing? 
> 
> In principle yes, 

Also in practice:

text
   sentence
   |- CMAVO
   |     KOhA: mi
   |- bridiTail3
      |- BRIVLA
      |     gismu: nelci
      |- sumti6
         |- CMAVO
         |     LA: la
         |- CMENE
               cmene: djan

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/