From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Mar 18 12:08:26 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 25543 invoked from network); 18 Mar 2004 20:08:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 18 Mar 2004 20:08:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao03.cox.net) (68.1.17.242) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2004 20:08:24 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.228.12.146]) by lakemtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.06.08 201-253-122-130-108-20031117) with ESMTP id <20040318200823.XKAC27519.lakemtao03.cox.net@bob.lojban.org>; Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:08:23 -0500 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040318145840.03d1c060@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: lojbab@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2004 15:12:05 -0500 To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org,lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20040318013958.GK11847@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20040318013409.GB12076@ccil.org> <20040317222428.GZ11847@digitalkingdom.org> <20040318011211.GH11847@digitalkingdom.org> <20040318012328.GI11847@digitalkingdom.org> <20040318013409.GB12076@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 68.1.17.242 From: Bob LeChevalier Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Official parser problem? X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21747 At 05:39 PM 3/17/04 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Wed, Mar 17, 2004 at 08:34:09PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > > Robin Lee Powell scripsit: > > > > > To parse: "lo'u mi le'u si lo'u mi le'u" > > > > > > You do step "c" of the preprocessing > > > > > > LOhU any_words_697{mi} LEhU si LOhU any_words_697{mi} LEhU > > > > > > > > > LOhU any_words_697{mi} LOhU any_words_697{mi} LEhU > > > > So far so good. But this is ungrammatical, because between LOhU and > > LEhU you have three tokens, and only one is permitted, which must be > > an any_words_697. > > > > > Now, theoretically this is one big, long lo'u...le'u string. > > > > Nope. It's OK for a "lo'u...le'u" string to contain a "lo'u" *word*, > > but what you have here is a "lo'u" *token*. > > > > > But the grammar as writen will not accomodate it. > > > > Rightly so. > >.o'onaisai > >You're glorifying an accident of the technology that was used to make >the grammar! The grammar was written quite intentionally around the idiosyncrasies of the technology that was used to make it. Among other things, at the time we were pushing the limits of what the YACC program we were using could handle with complexity - the software company (Abraxas) actually modified their PCYACC product for free for us because we were breaking it, even though we were a charity customer. We made several choices because they *worked*, not because they were elegant. It isn't "glorifying". It is baselining. >No actual Lojban speaker would go, "Gee, I seem to have a lo'u token in >my input, not a lo'u word. I better give up.". At the time we taught that if you were going to use lo'u or le'u in the word string, that you shouldn't, and go for zoi quotes instead. We attempted to make the lo'u/le'u preparser rules clean by considering how it could be broken, but we were not trying to maximize the capabilities of lo'u/le'u. >Quite frankly, I'm stunned that you are actually supporting such an >asinine position. The comment is uncalled for. We made decisions based on the priorities of the time, whether you consider them "asinine" by present standards or not. No one proposed changes to this during the time when the grammar was up for modification under the baseline change proposal system, so no changes were made. Our *job* was to defend the baseline (and still is). You asked what the design was, and were told; calling the answer "asinine" doesn't make people want to answer your questions. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org