Date: Wed, 5 Aug 92 06:06:52 -0400 From: lojbab@grebyn.com (Logical Language Group) Message-Id: <9208051006.AA15512@daily.grebyn.com> To: VILVA@viikki21.helsinki.fi Subject: Re: the machine grammars Cc: 70674.1215@compuserve.com, I.alexander.bra0122@oasis.icl.co.uk, c.j.fine@bradford.ac.uk, cowan@snark.thyrsus.com, fred@wam.umd.edu, nsn@mullian.ee.mu.oz.au, shoulson@ctr.columbia.edu Content-Length: 1799 Lines: 32 Ooops! (I'm cc'ing this to everyone reveiwing, so I'll clarify). Veijo has caught one typo in the BNF, and asked a question that indicates something I said in the text description of the changes is invalid. 1. There is an extraneous rule"sumti-tail<113>" in the BNF after relative-clause<122>. Delete it: it is a remnant of the older BNF. The correct 113 rule is earlier, in proper numerical order. Thus there is a sumti-tail, a sumti-tail-1, and a sumti-tail-2 rule, in order, and should be no other definitions of sumti-tail and its subcomponents. 2. Veijo asked about sumti-5<95>, which as written allows nested quantifiers to the infinite degree on a sumti. This is not a typo, since it appears to be the saame in both the YACC and BNF grammars. People may decide they wish it to be a mistake{{,q and ask the reference rule to be changed to "quantifier sumti-6", which allows only a single quantifier. It appears that we did our usual and worked the grammar out to maximize expressive capability. In this case, the rule would allow a variation of the multiply quantified indefinites that Colin didn't like. Only in this case, it is non-indefinites that get multiple quantifiers. The grammar would thus allow such things as "ci " or "re ". Since relative clauses are not added until the next higher step, at rule sumti-4, only the fully outer-most quantifier can have a relative clause associated with it. At first glance this would appear to be a useless wart, but I will let people comment - if they see a use for it. My suspicion is that it should be treated as outside number selecting from inside number. With Cowan not available thiss week, I want to find out if he has any reasons supporting it. I will not fight strongly for it.