From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri Apr 09 10:53:44 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 51907 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2004 17:53:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 9 Apr 2004 17:53:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 9 Apr 2004 17:53:44 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BC08p-0007p4-CJ for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:50:11 -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 1BC086-0007nr-Mt; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:49:26 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41902.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.153]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BC07x-0007mz-Rv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:49:17 -0700 Message-ID: <20040409174846.62499.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.69.6.60] by web41902.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 10:48:46 PDT Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 10:48:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20040409051024.GA2886@skunk.reutershealth.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7513 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: 21987 --- 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? I don't think human capability can be much of an issue here. It's just that the elimination of A would go too much against tradition. A good compromise might be to let A alone but extend JA to have tha grammar of JOI, so that {le broda je le brode} would be acceptable along with {le broda e le brode}. If humans can handle {joi}, then they can handle {je} with the same grammar. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/