From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Jul 12 06:12:17 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:12:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0eVP-0006aT-Qg for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:11:55 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.182]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0eVN-0006aM-Rv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:11:55 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so288279pye for ; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:11:52 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=LJP3rpnZ0GKq0//Wj9iM+NUWq5Wl5BwJb3Vz+L+Z74nODFsjby9jbVwUXJfOfiM6ApKWxI0zQ4s9pEr0YiOWNUOTEXy/ondfk5bPNzPLFRIIDK6oVtWCJeY8jZglQabAzGv9JLwuW7ye0EYBOIS0ZbncfkMBYqe9nhjKdaIe9U0= Received: by 10.35.129.19 with SMTP id g19mr793751pyn; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 06:11:52 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607120611r6cff869bw3d732846112bf96a@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 10:11:52 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Is Lojban a CFG? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Enumerating in Lojban) In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12148 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 7/12/06, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > To be far too annoying, given > > > le nu le broda brode brodi > > why not just state "Lojban is left-grouping by default" to > disambiguate the whole set of these statements, rather than deciding > "that's not Lojban"? (left-grouping being the same concept as > leftmost-derivation) I can't think of any situation that wouldn't be > disambiguated by that... the above would group as > "(le (nu (le (broda brode)) brodi))", > and there'd be a simple rule to tell what the grouping should be. Wouldn't left-grouping give you: (le (nu (le broda) brode) brodi) ? > I'm really wondering why that design decision was made. I'll probably > quiet down about it soon, though. Probably because the alternative can be very unintuitive. Another example: li pa pa pa pa moi That's ungrammatical, but li pa pa pa boi pa moi is grammatical. I think breaking a string of digits by some precedence rule would be unintuitive. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.