Message-ID: <31223588.1DE8@ccil.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 14:18:32 -0500
From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
Organization: Lojban Central
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI
Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
References: <199602121648.LAA01061@locke.ccil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 973
Lines: 19

la veion. cusku di'e

> 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.

Regrettably, it can't.  Whatever is done in the preparser rules (900-end) 
can't refer to things in the earlier rules, on pain of implementing the 
entire parser within the preparser.  So "NOI sentence" within a tense is 
impossible, even though it YACCs, it doesn't fit the schema of the 
parser, which is to keep the compounded forms simple.  Of these, tense 
(lexer_O) is already the worst offender, and further complications are 
truly intolerable.

I am still thinking about the other possibilities.  I weakly favor 
messing with "ve'i <sumti>", although I recognize the annoying doubled 
semantics of the i/a/u vowel plus what the sumti actually says.