From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Sun Apr 04 15:23:09 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:23:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BAG19-0006mg-Td for lojban-list@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Apr 2004 15:23:03 -0700 Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 15:23:03 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] The strange case of "le me by moi" Message-ID: <20040404222303.GD23652@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 7430 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 Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list A sentence including a construct like le me by moi appears in Alice. I have no idea what it means. According to the BNF, this is not only legal but explicitely legal: ME # sumti /MEhU#/ [MOI #] grammar.300 agrees: | ME_477 sumti_90 MEhU_gap_465 MOI_476 So unless I'm seriously confused, there should be no problem parsing the example sentence as "le me by me'u moi". Despite this, neither the official parser nor jbofihe parse the example sentence, although they parse "le me by me'u moi" just fine. I'm wondering if anyone has a reason for this. I suspect LR(1) issues, but I'm not sure. -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