From lojban-out@lojban.org Sun Mar 21 17:41:36 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 16205 invoked from network); 22 Mar 2004 01:41:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m17.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 22 Mar 2004 01:41:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 22 Mar 2004 01:41:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5ERX-0002nA-9o for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:41:31 -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 1B5EQZ-0002m4-43; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:40:31 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:40:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1B5EQP-0002lt-FO for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:40:21 -0800 Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:40:21 -0800 Message-ID: <20040322014021.GE30473@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040321191809.GB32271@digitalkingdom.org> <20040321184454.GA32271@digitalkingdom.org> <20040321191809.GB32271@digitalkingdom.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20040321190741.0333f600@pop.east.cox.net> <20040322013001.GC30473@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040322013001.GC30473@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7287 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: Error in bnf.300 X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21762 On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 05:30:01PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 07:52:40PM -0500, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > At 11:54 AM 3/21/04 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >But the "I jek" has already been eaten, so the appropriate parte of > > >paragraph can't match. Oops, nowhere to go. Oh well. > > > > > >(I know this occurs because I just watched my PEG parser do it > > >several times until I changed the ordering; it's fixed now, and is > > >the only Lojban parser I'm aware of that can parse "mi broda .i je > > >bo no da zo'u broda"). > > > > It prescriptively shouldn't be able to. Under TECHFIX 45, the > > ability to put an unmarked prenex after an IJEK was specifically and > > intentionally removed. > > > > Ummm, *OK*. It's an example from the Reference Grammar. > > roda zo'u mi prami da .ije naku zo'u do prami da > > Chapter 16, example 10.5. > > I haven't easily been able to find Techfix 45. Can you point me to > it? Nevermind, I found it: CHANGE 45 CURRENT LANGUAGE: Grammatically, I and ijek are treated identically, although in the semantics, I constitutes a stronger boundary. Prenexes can be attached only to sentences or to TUhE...TUhU groups, although logically a prenex can persist across several sentences connected by ijeks. PROPOSED CHANGE: Treat I as a higher-priority break than ijek (which is higher than I+BO or ijek+BO; no distinction is made between I+BO and ijek+BO). Shift all the sentence fragments (the forms of utterance_20 which are not sentence_40) to a higher level; they can only be connected by I, not by any lower-level form. Attach prenexes to the new level "statement_11"; statements contain ijeks and I+BOs, but not bare Is. RATIONALE: 1) It has always been a rule that I and ijek have different semantic implications: I is a pure separator, whereas ijek connects as well as separating. In particular, logical variables persist across ijek boundaries always, but (by default) not across I boundaries. This change makes the grammar reflect the semantics. *That*, by the by, is incredibly useful, and solves a number of arguments I've had. 2) Logically connecting sentence fragments never did make very much sense, but was allowed because of the lack of distinction between I and ijek. In which case, it's just the Reference Grammar and the official parser's lexer that are broken. Which, I suppose, is better. -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