From LOJBAN@CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU Sat Mar 6 22:51:25 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Received: (qmail 13851 invoked from network); 1 Mar 1997 14:31:50 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se (192.36.125.6) by xiron.pc.helsinki.fi with SMTP; 1 Mar 1997 14:31:50 -0000 Received: from segate.sunet.se by SEGATE.SUNET.SE (LSMTP for OpenVMS v1.1a) with SMTP id <14.2566E7D6@SEGATE.SUNET.SE>; Sat, 1 Mar 1997 15:31:50 +0100 Date: Sat, 1 Mar 1997 02:06:37 UT Reply-To: Geoffrey Hacker Sender: Lojban list From: Geoffrey Hacker Subject: le nanmu ku joi le ninmu X-To: Lojban List To: Veijo Vilva Content-Length: 868 Lines: 19 Message-ID: coi rodo I object to having to put what is normally an elidable terminator, "ku", in between "le nanmu" and "joi le ninmu" just because the parser is too stupid to realise that if a "le" follows the "joi" then "joi" must be connecting two sumti, not two tanru components. Surely it cannot be difficult to write a parsing program using the algorithm: 1. If a descriptor follows the JOI cmavo, then the cmavo is joining two sumti. 2. If a brivla follows the JOI cmavo, then the cmavo is joining two components of a tanru. and so on, for all the other grammatical things that can follow a "joi". There is no reason why a parsing error should have to result in reading what is, IN PRINCIPLE, an unambiguous phrase. So I will just have to formally object to the Lojban formal grammar in this instance. People should be aided, not restrained, by machines. co'omi'e djef