From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Mon May 10 11:47:50 2004
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 11:47:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31)
	id 1BNFoV-0005rn-Iw
	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 11:47:43 -0700
Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 11:47:43 -0700
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI
Message-ID: <20040510184743.GE5570@digitalkingdom.org>
Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org
References: <20040510175516.GC5570@digitalkingdom.org> <20040510184208.99162.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20040510184208.99162.qmail@web41901.mail.yahoo.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i
From: Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>
X-archive-position: 7749
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 11:42:08AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> BTW, what does your parser do with {zei zei da} at the beginning of
> text?

tanruUnit=( tanruUnit1=( tanruUnit2=( anyWord=( zei ) spacingNoAbsorbOpt=( ) PARSERparen3=( ZEI=( zei ) anyWord=( da ) spacingNoAbsorbOpt=( ) ) absorbIndicators=() )

In other words, it creates a lujvo that means "zei type-of da".

Which is what I think a human would expect.

> > > {da zei de bu} is legal: first {da zei de} delivers BRIVLA, and
> > > then {BRIVLA BU} delivers BY.
> > 
> > Good point, but not terribly helpful for the ZO + ZEI case that I
> > can see.
> 
> At least it shows that "word" is a flexible concept in these
> definitions.

Oh, yeah.  Good point.

> In {zo da si de}, {zo da bu}, {zo da zei de}, we have zo and something
> else fighting over the same word, one pulling from the left and the
> other from the right. We just have to define which one has priority,
> and the other one should act on what remains.

I don't see any reason to over-ride grammar.300 on that point: ZO has
higher priority.  But then we're back to whether or not SI eats more
than one word, which grammar.300 says it does not.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***  I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/  ***  loi pimlu na srana .i ti rokci morsi