From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Apr 10 12:25:46 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 17346 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2004 19:25:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2004 19:25:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao09.cox.net) (68.230.240.30) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2004 19:25:45 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.228.12.146]) by lakermmtao09.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040410192436.NLQE8453.lakermmtao09.cox.net@bob.lojban.org>; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:24:36 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040410151832.03608700@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: lojbab@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 15:25:07 -0400 To: jcowan@reutershealth.com Cc: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20040409021916.GB13184@skunk.reutershealth.com> References: <5.2.0.9.0.20040407072603.0336d170@pop.east.cox.net> <20040330055426.GD27631@ccil.org> <20040329070110.GO6569@digitalkingdom.org> <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org> <20040329231516.GU6569@digitalkingdom.org> <20040330055426.GD27631@ccil.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20040407072603.0336d170@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 68.230.240.30 From: Bob LeChevalier Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Robin Confused (was Re: Re: "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1)) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22001 At 10:19 PM 4/8/04 -0400, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote: >Bob LeChevalier scripsit: > > I'm afraid of loosening the rules too much if not necessary, for fear we > > will end up with something like the PA string situation and the UI string > > situation where everything is grammatical but interpretation is > potentially > > a nightmare. > >The trouble is that we're already there. Since any string of tense >cmavo can be made grammatical in term_83 context by inserting judicious >ku's, which the parser will cheerfully do, all the effort put into >simple_tense_modal_972 and its children was basically pointless. The rules are still useful for sumti tcita and in theory all tense constructs should be semantically equivalent to some sumti tcita construct. > > The X-ku Y-ku > > breakup at least gives an interpretation for odd strings, even if it may > > not be the one people would like. > >No, it just pushes the interpretation question off on what it means to have >multiple tense-ku's in a bridi. Nothing changes, really. Does puku ze'aku >mean the same as puze'a, for instance? Nobody knows. puze'a means "pu da ku ze'a de ku" appropriately places in the sentence for some values of da and de. I thought you had explicitly defined things this way in the red book. >Tentatively, I would favor a loosening of the grammar (this is a real byfy >change) whereby arbitrary sequences of tense cmavo are permitted in any >context, but only the existing permitted sequences have standard >interpretations. >This would preserve most of the Red Book, and would only require a notation >that tense-cmavo sequences other than the known ones do not yet have defined >meanings. That's the game we played with PA, as I understand it, and now we have debates over the meaning of some of those undefined strings. 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