From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Nov 05 05:34:53 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:34:53 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KxiX7-0003el-6i for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:34:53 -0800 Received: from mail-gx0-f15.google.com ([209.85.217.15]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KxiX3-0003dK-UV for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:34:53 -0800 Received: by gxk8 with SMTP id 8so1952495gxk.0 for ; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:34:43 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=XeQrLyoyF76252ItugZj5HfeygB8p2vTINATR/ZtffU=; b=Gx1Jp1OaKXL3gynoHiH6ntgZCqvzrrbdP46S8x0AlLs83Fa/XMVYlxAKRCuTbMuIbm 45CKAk79JjHh1FsyHe6X55THSNhrrVEufUc28yidY5+WjrBVDQZBBKjG1Xp5UuEH23HV t54q23GAj0M0bK4U3rOob51xWnTalFeJCKw9A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=vQPkKQz8T2r7FZ+2h12G3HwpFZdnbtC+a8SDO8Bv9B/Llb/uVv1XMS5HYPdw143sGH wymjMdul43Fi/+6pccxG1+xBhmq3QskgvwiRzizgvIFk0AeSEjzA+SnoB3YCqAQtEUy9 nZK/Bis50Vv++wvU9iYUtAniUEOFFVpHohSC4= Received: by 10.151.157.1 with SMTP id j1mr324719ybo.10.1225892083863; Wed, 05 Nov 2008 05:34:43 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.150.199.20 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Nov 2008 05:34:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <737b61f30811050534i514b3fddv197b2a07a47655f9@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:34:43 -0600 From: "Chris Capel" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: experimental cmavo in lojgloss. In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30811022128n9e8692evefaa820062d2a652@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560811031040t402eb7a9k31e0d61bf7ca3cea@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560811040350g2a04db8ewd2f34a8a43d96767@mail.gmail.com> <737b61f30811041523o3574936fp27dea91b6a058c26@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14927 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: pdf23ds@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 03:58, Daniel Brockman wrote: > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 12:23 AM, Chris Capel wrote: >> Right, but it would still be unparsable. The problem is that the text >> before it is ungrammatical, and so has to be ignored by the parser to >> get the whole thing to parse, which requires that the parser >> understand which words the lo'ai is nulling out. It can't be treated >> half-way and have things still parse. > > The obvious way to implement {lo'ai .. sa'ai .. le'ai} in a parser is to > just treat it as a self-contained construct that requires morphologically > correct Lojban inside it, just like {lo'u .. le'u'}, and syntactically > correct Lojban before it (just like everything else). How far before it? Up to the beginning of the sentence? The statement? > Of course it would require extraordinary methods to get things like {kwama > lo'ai kwama sa'ai klama le'ai} --- or why not {fsen.45ynl5tnerg98ehg4n su > coi} --- to parse. It's not practical and not cost-efficient. The {kjama} > example falls in this category because {kj} is morphologically invalid. Hmm. I think you overestimate the difference in effort between the two implementations. They both require the same tricks, just at a slightly different level in the grammar. > What _would_ be useful and cost-efficient would be to get things like {.i > .ai mi cakla sa'ai ckakla le'ai} to parse. Actually, this is the only useful one I can think of. If the text isn't grammatical before the le'ai clause, then the user is probably going to want to manually correct it anyway before feeding it to the parser. This example happens to be both grammatical, and having nearly the same parse tree as the corrected version (since the before and after words are both brivla). > The parser shouldn't try to > actually replace anything at the parser level. It should just parse the > {le'ai} construct and report its syntax tree to the client. Right, I'm with you on that. Chris Capel -- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet) 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.