From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Apr 09 13:34:34 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 26760 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2004 20:34:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.166) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2004 20:34:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta5.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2004 20:34:34 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BC2hs-0002iD-SH for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:34:32 -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 1BC2gU-0002g2-74; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:33:06 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:33:03 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41906.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.157]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BC2gL-0002cf-Eq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:32:57 -0700 Message-ID: <20040409203226.44018.qmail@web41906.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.60] by web41906.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 13:32:26 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 13:32:26 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040409185727.GN14789@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7520 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: 21994 --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:48:46AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote: > > > > > > I will not support, however, any structural changes that *could* be > > > made as a result of going to infinite-lookahead grammar: no A/JA > > > merger, e.g. 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 but just the result > > > of smarter resolution of elidable terminators than Yacc allows. > > > > Isn't that self-contradictory? Why is infinite-lookahead acceptable > > for JOI but not for JE? > > Because JA/A is formalized in the grammar; elidable terminators are not. Is JOI formalized in the grammar? If not, why not? If yes, how does {lo broda je lo brode} require infinite-lookahead but {lo broda joi lo brode} does not? I'm afraid I don't understand what the problem would be. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/