From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Apr 09 14:44:00 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 37021 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2004 21:43:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.167) by m20.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2004 21:43:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2004 21:43:59 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BC3k1-0004gr-Dz for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:40:49 -0700 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 1BC3jN-0004fg-Nh; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:40:09 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BC3jE-0004f3-Ah for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:40:00 -0700 Message-ID: <20040409213929.26415.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.60] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 14:39:29 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 14:39:29 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040409211057.GV14789@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7524 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 From: Jorge "Llambías" Reply-To: jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Subject: [lojban] Re: Official parser and "lo ni'a zu crino" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=142311107 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21998 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 02:04:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > The point that you seem to be missing is that "lo broda joi lo > > > brode" requires infinite lookahead only to insert the elidable > > > terminators, i.e. to read it as "lo broda ku joi lo brode ku". > > > > That's what I thought. > > Actually, in that case it only requires 2 token lookahead. I haven't > thought about the general case very much. A number could follow joi, which can be as long as you like: le broda joi papapa...pa moi vs. le broda joi papapa...pa brode So you do need infinite lookahead. > > But then what does John mean when he says: > > > > > > > > > For one thing, human beings don't support infinite > > > > > > > lookahead. But I am okay with accepting things like "le > > > > > > > broda joi le brodi", since that is not truly an ambiguity > > > > How can he reject {le broda je le brode} on the grounds that humans > > don't support infinite lookahead while in the same paragraph accept > > {le broda joi le brode}? Isn't that self-contradictory? > > I don't think that he meant it that way, hence "For one thing". I'm > fairly certain that I spoke for him in my long explanation, but he'll > have to speak for himself. I have nothing to object to your explanation. I'm just saying that human capacity is besides the point here. Lojban grammar allows lots of humanly umparsable sentences anyway. And in this particular case, the proposed new structure {le broda je le brode} already exists for {joi}, so the objection on those grounds does not make sense. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/