From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Mar 29 12:02:03 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 45469 invoked from network); 29 Mar 2004 20:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m16.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Mar 2004 20:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Mar 2004 20:01:54 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B82xE-0005hd-Ig for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:01:52 -0800 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1B82wX-0005gb-Ex; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:01:09 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:01:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B82wN-0005gP-MC for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:00:59 -0800 Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 12:00:59 -0800 Message-ID: <20040329200059.GR6569@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040329070110.GO6569@digitalkingdom.org> <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7391 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21865 On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 07:09:55AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > Am I correct in my belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong > > with accepting the first case, given the infinite lookahead required > > to realize that the remainder is a gek-sentence and that the pu > > *must* end immediately? > > I'm a little cautious about totally identifying "pu" and "pu ku" > semantically, despite the expansive claims of the Red Book on the > subject, because I do not know what to do when the tense involves a > -roi quantification. Heh. Too late: da poi cribe roroi xagji ({da KU} VAU)] KU'O>} {xagji VAU}) The official parser sticks a KU in there. The other ones: da poi cribe roroiku zo'u da xagji ({ VAU}) KU'O]> zo'u} {da }) roroiku da poi cribe zo'u da xagji ({<[(ro roi) ku] [da (poi {cribe VAU} KU'O)]> zo'u} {da }) roroi xagji fa da poi cribe ({ xagji} { VAU}) > Consider these four sentences: > > 1) da poi cribe roroiku zo'u da xagji > 2) roroiku da poi cribe zo'u da xagji > 3) da poi cribe roroi xagji > 4) roroi xagji fa da poi cribe > > There is no doubt that 1 means there's a bear that's always hungry > (false) and that 2 means there's always a hungry bear somewhere > (true), and that 4 is the same as 2. The question is, is 3 the same > as 2 or the same as 1? I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand ordering issues well at all. Given the parse that the official parser gives up at the top, which is true, or does that even affect anything? > Sorry not to be more helpful. Plenty fine to me. You've been doing exactly what I've been looking for. Thank you. -Robin -- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all from running out and eating all the cookies." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui