Return-Path: Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with smtp (Linux Smail3.1.28.1 #1) id m0tKcSB-0000ZUC; Wed, 29 Nov 95 04:40 EET Message-Id: Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id F5537809 ; Wed, 29 Nov 1995 3:40:58 +0100 Date: Tue, 28 Nov 1995 19:33:53 -0700 Reply-To: Chris Bogart Sender: Lojban list From: Chris Bogart Subject: Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X3: Extension of JA To: lojban@cuvmb.bitnet Content-Length: 1969 Lines: 50 >> The flexibility of JOI comes at the expense of always requiring the >> elidable to terminate the previous construct. > >{broda joi brode} requires no terminator. The reason we don't need a terminator in: le broda .a le brode is because .a is only legal for sumti, not selbri -- we have ja for selbri. The comparable: le broda ku joi le brode needs "ku" because joi has wider application than .a, so without the {ku} we wouldn't know whether joi was connecting {le broda} to another sumti or {broda} with another selbri. If JA were allowed to fill both roles, you'd have to say: le broda ku ja le brode You couldn't have le broda ja le brode because scanning that requires more than an LALR(1) parser. Hmmm but now that I go through that train of logic I've changed my mind -- having to put ku before ja in that case isn't so bad, really, since .a is still there if you prefer it. If it can be done so that no existing use of JA requires a terminator, only new uses, then maybe I favor the change. >> I would have proposed long ago to make multiple non-logical >> selma'o with different cmavo assigned to each - the exact oopposite of your >> proposal. %^) (WE never seriously considered that one either.) > >Why would you like to make the grammar more complicated? I think that >there are already too many selmaho for very specific things that should >not be there. Having to learn exceptions and special cases is difficult. >The more selmaho there are the more difficult the language becomes. One measure of difficulty is the number of selma'o; another might be the number of situations where terminators are needed. Selma'o are for parsers; for learners, the choice is between explaining "use .e for sumti, je for selbri" or "put terminator before je when connecting sumti". Neither seems particularly easier to me. ____ Chris Bogart \ / http://www.quetzal.com Boulder, CO \/ cbogart@quetzal.com