Return-Path: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@vms.dc.LSOFT.COM Received: from SEGATE.SUNET.SE (segate.sunet.se [192.36.125.6]) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi (8.7.1/8.7.1) with ESMTP id IAA03677 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:23:15 +0200 Message-Id: <199602120623.IAA03677@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi> Received: from listmail.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.0a) with SMTP id 6FBF548F ; Mon, 12 Feb 1996 7:23:15 +0100 Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 08:21:40 +0200 Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Re: GEN: almost.PROPOSAL: intervals X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 1249 Lines: 42 mi pu cusku di'e > Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 06:36:58 +0200 > From: Veijo Vilva > Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals > > ERROR: the YACC modification I previously sent works at the YACC > level but isn't feasible in practice as the modification > ended up on the lexer side - I'm not yet sure whether it > can be done on the parser side, probably not without a > major modification. However, adding the following two lines to the rules for 'modifier_82' | tense_modal_815 relative_clauses_121 | tense_modal_815 relative_clauses_121 BO_508 sumti_90 (in the unmodified grammar) would give us a working solution. Examples: * mi ba zinoi jeftu ku'o cliva or * mi cliva bazinoi jeftu * mi zano'u pimu loi mi gu'arna'a ge'u vi gunka or * mi vi gunka zano'u pimu loi mi gu'arna'a * mi xabju vanoi mitre li paxaki'o bo la'o sy Helsinki sy ------------------------------------------------------------- I REPEAT: THIS IS NOT A CHANGE PROPOSAL. I REFRAIN FROM MAKING ANY NEW PROPOSALS -- co'o mi'e veion --------------------------------- .i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy. ---------------------------------