From jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar Fri May 07 13:38:59 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 May 2004 13:38:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from web41901.mail.yahoo.com ([66.218.93.152]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.31) id 1BMC7Q-0008IP-N7 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 May 2004 13:38:52 -0700 Message-ID: <20040507203819.68997.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com> Received: from [200.49.74.2] by web41901.mail.yahoo.com via HTTP; Fri, 07 May 2004 13:38:19 PDT Date: Fri, 7 May 2004 13:38:19 -0700 (PDT) From: Jorge "Llambías" Subject: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <20040507185509.GN7020@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-archive-position: 7683 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 Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > What does {da zo si si} do? > > It *should* result in just 'da', because zo is defined as turning itself > and the next argument into a single word. zoi is *not* so defined. I checked grammar .300, and there seems to be no such distinction between zo and zoi: a. If the Lojban word ``zoi'' (selma'o ZOI) is identified, take the following Lojban word (which should be end delimited with a pause for separation from the following non-Lojban text) as an opening delimiter. Treat all text following that delimiter, until that delimiter recurs *after a pause*, as grammatically a single token (labelled 'anything_699' in this grammar). There is no need for processing within this text except as necessary to find the closing delimiter. b. If the Lojban word ``zo'' (selma'o ZO) is identified, treat the following Lojban word as a token labelled 'any_word_698', instead of lexing it by its normal grammatical function. So both words turn what follows into special tokens, but remain themselves as separate tokens. That's not good. It causes a lot of problems. All of the following should give error if grammar .300 is followed to the letter: {zo da si de} si will erase the previous token, 'any_word_698', and then ZO followed by KOhA should give an error. {zo da zei de} zei will join 'any_word_698' and KOhA and turn everything into BRIVLA, but then ZO followed by BRIVLA should cause an error. {zo da bu} bu will turn 'any_word_698' into BY, but then ZO followed by BY should cause an error. Similar things will happen with zoi: {zoi gy sth gy si} will give an error because si will swallow the 'any_word_698' token and what's left: ZOI any_word_698 anything_699 will be followed by something else and give an error. The only way to recover is to add three more {si}'s to remove everything. I think that the Right Thing is to treat {zo } and {zoi } as single tokens of selmaho KOhA. In any case, I don't see any justification for treating {zo} in one way and {zoi} in another. mu'o mi'e xorxes __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover