From tk1@despammed.com Fri May 09 00:07:46 2003
Return-Path: <tk1@despammed.com>
X-Sender: tk1@despammed.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 9 May 2003 07:07:45 -0000
Received: (qmail 92778 invoked from network); 9 May 2003 07:07:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217)
  by m2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 May 2003 07:07:45 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO n5.grp.scd.yahoo.com) (66.218.66.89)
  by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 May 2003 07:07:45 -0000
Received: from [66.218.66.118] by n5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 09 May 2003 07:07:45 -0000
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 07:07:44 -0000
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: Some ideas/questions (long)
Message-ID: <b9fk40+4li1@eGroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030506230928.03786d50@pop.east.cox.net>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Length: 1612
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
From: "c1tk" <tk1@despammed.com>
X-Originating-IP: 137.132.3.12
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=134553381
X-Yahoo-Profile: c1tk
X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 19680

Hello all,

> >(I am thinking of utterances such as ".i le gerku jersi le mlatu fa'o"
> It is not rejected by the Lojban parser, but doesn't have that meaning.  It 
> merely represents the grammatical list of two sumti: "The dog-chaser, the 
> cat", which might be an answer to the question:

Oops, sorry that was a bad example. But I found there are some other
utterances which do cause problems. For example, {le gerku joi le mlatu},
under the grammar described in the file "bnf.233", does have a valid unique
parse:

	text
	=> text-1
	=> paragraphs
	=> paragraph
	=> paragraph-1
	=> paragraph-2
	=> utterance
	=> term				by rule: utterance = term ... /VAU#/
	=> sumti
	=> sumti-1 joik sumti
	...
	=> {le} sumti-tail-1 joik sumti
	=> {le} selbri joik sumti
	...
	=> {le} tanru-unit-2 joik sumti
	=> {le gerku} joik sumti
	=> {le gerku joi} sumti
	...
	=> {le gerku joi le mlatu}

However, the same utterance is not accepted by the machine parser in
"grammar.c". Thus, the grammar given in "bnf.233" and the grammar described
by "grammar.c" actually correspond to not the same language, but _two_
different languages. If Lojban is a single, unambiguous language, then at
least one of the grammars must be wrong.

(While I know that this bit of weirdness is semi-documented in Chapter 14 of
the Reference Grammar, but it does not help in resolving this anomaly.)

Thanks,
-- 
GPG:f75949318a026c5707ff188b438cca87faf73a82 http://angelfire.com/folk/sm0p/
GCS/MU d- s: a- C++() UL P++(+++) L++(+++) E- W++ N(+) o K? w--- O? M? V?   
PS(+) PE Y+ PGP+ t? 5? X- R- tv-() b+ DI(+) D+ G e++ h-- !r>+++ !y