From noras@cox.net Thu May 06 15:18:51 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 06 May 2004 15:18:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakermmtao12.cox.net ([68.230.240.27]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BLrCU-00077g-AP for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 06 May 2004 15:18:42 -0700 Received: from nora.cox.net ([68.228.12.146]) by lakermmtao12.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040506221810.PZKO164.lakermmtao12.cox.net@nora.cox.net> for ; Thu, 6 May 2004 18:18:10 -0400 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20040506181623.032d1340@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: noras@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 18:20:33 -0400 To: lojban-list@lojban.org From: Nora LeChevalier Subject: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI In-Reply-To: <20040506003409.GI7020@digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-archive-position: 7676 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: noras@cox.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list At 05:34 PM 5/5/04 -0700, Robin wrote: >Now that I can parse ZOI, it was necessary to figure out what the >interactions with it and SI and SA would be. Along the way, I added >some features to the interaction between SI and SA. This is what I've >currently got on my parser page, and I'd very much like people's >opinions. > >In particular, if there is a direct contradiction with grammar.300 that is >*not* obviously based on YACC limitations, or anything that seems strongly >counter-intuitive, please let me know. > >The main page for my parser is >http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/ > > > * Groups of "si" and everything up to a "sa" are both erased at the > beginning >of a string. This may or may not be justifiable according to grammer.300; >no-one's really sure. This means that sentences like "si si si" and "sa" are >legal, as well as sentences like "le broda sa .i mi cusku". > > * SA and SI now interact in a more obvious fashion. For example, "le broda >brode brodi .y. sa le si la broda brode brodi" is equivalent to "la broda >brode >brodi". Just using "sa" would not work because "le" and "lo" are in different >selma'o. > > * Interactions between ZOI, SI, and SA are much richer. The goal is to >achieve something more like what a user would 'expect', given the basic >definitions of those words. Details: > > > + The first SI after the close of a ZOI clause erases the closing >delimiter, allowing one to add to the protected text. "zoi gy weeble gy si bob >gy" is equivalent to "zoi gy weeble bob gy". > > + Two consecutive SI after the close of a ZOI erases the non-Lojban > text >itself; while it would theoretcially be possible to have consecutive SI after >the close of a ZOI erase individual words inside the ZOI protected text, this >is a bad idea because (for example) breaking up a bird call into words makes >very little sense. > > So, for example, "zoi gy da da da gy si si de gy" is equivalent > to "zoi >gy de gy". > > + The interaction of these two features leads to a somewhat > strange, but >very minor, side effect: It is impossible to add to the protected text >inside a >zoi clause (i.e. using a single SI after the closing delimiter) any text that >starts with "si" (unless it then goes on to be something that looks like a >Lojban brivla or cmene), because it will be interpreted as two SI, causing >erasure of the entire protected text. > > + Three consecutive SI after the close of a ZOI erases everything > but the >ZOI itself, so that, for example, "zoi gy da da da gy si si si dy weeble >dy" is >equivalent to "zoi dy weeble dy". > > + Four consecutive SI after the close of a ZOI erases the entire ZOI >clause, including the ZOI. > > + Because of the SA and SI interaction enhancements, the fast way to >delete and accidental ZOI is to close the delimiter and say "sa zoi si", and >then continue on. For example, "broda zoi gy da da da da gy sa zoi si da" is >equivalent to "broda da". > > >-Robin I think I've seen someone use "si" as the delimiter. This majorly complicates things, no? Also, from a making-sense point of view, I prefer "si" after the closing delimiter to delete the entire zoi phrase (back to and including the zoi). To say that "The first SI after the close of a ZOI clause erases the closing delimiter..." would make one think the next thing said is part of the inside of the ZOI; so you would never be able to get back to the ZOI. I had this trouble with the current version, too, by the way. There is a precedent for this. When applying a UI, if it's after something like a le broda ku, it applies to the whole le ... ku construct. -- mi'e noras noras@cox.net Nora LeChevalier