From clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Wed Feb 02 09:09:46 2005
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:09:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from web81308.mail.yahoo.com ([206.190.37.83])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.34)
	id 1CwO0Z-0004r1-4Z
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:09:39 -0800
Message-ID: <20050202170906.69590.qmail@web81308.mail.yahoo.com>
Received: from [65.69.49.128] by web81308.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Wed, 02 Feb 2005 09:09:06 PST
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2005 09:09:06 -0800 (PST)
From: John E Clifford <clifford-j@sbcglobal.net>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Minimal Lojban
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
In-Reply-To: <20050202154327.53636.qmail@web41905.mail.yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-archive-position: 9408
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list


--- Jorge Llambías <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>
wrote:

> 
> --- John E Clifford wrote:
> > Standard logic -- when it wants to dispense
> with
> > parentheses without going Polish -- has a
> system
> > of depth tags (usually something like ', '',
> ...
> > or ., :, and so on).  Can {bo} be repeated to
> > give closer and closer bindings? 
> 
> Not with the current grammar, no.
> 
> > Or subscripted?
> 
> Yes. The parse tree in this case won't reflect
> any difference 
> in binding, but this would not be the only
> place in the grammar
> where the parse structure does not reflect the
> logical structure
> anyway.

Also painfully true.  Loglan had a cmavo
corresponding to a standard logic abbreviation to
indicate that the following chunk was to be taken
as a unit wrt left grouping: essentially a left
parenthesis without a matching right.  The test
sentence would then be {p ija X q ijo r ije s}, a
more manageable chunk.  Is that flag -- the X
here -- still around (I don't even know what to
look up to search for it).  But in looking, I
notice that a string of {bo}s gets right grouped
throughout, soo the alternative to {boxire} and
then {bo}, namely {bo... bo...}, won't work
either.