From lojbab@lojban.org Mon May 10 04:52:10 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 36562 invoked from network); 10 May 2004 11:52:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2004 11:52:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao05.cox.net) (68.230.240.34) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2004 11:52:07 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.228.12.146]) by lakermmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040510115140.PAWA18641.lakermmtao05.cox.net@bob.lojban.org> for ; Mon, 10 May 2004 07:51:40 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040510074646.03350bd0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: lojbab@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 07:50:27 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com In-Reply-To: <20040507204023.GA27947@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20040507193128.20639.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> <20040507185509.GN7020@digitalkingdom.org> <20040507193128.20639.qmail@web41903.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 68.230.240.34 From: Bob LeChevalier Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22199 At 01:40 PM 5/7/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > > --- 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. > > > > Is there a justification for that difference? > >Huh. > >I'm sorry, I thought that that difference was explicitely stated >somewhere, but I can't find it. The Red Book doesn't seem to say >whether or not "zo da" is treated as a single word at all. > >So unless I'm missing something, all we have to go on is grammar.300, >which says: > >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 "zoi da de da" is turned into four tokens, "zoi da anything_699 da" >and "zo da" is turned into the single token "any_word_698". > >It is this behaviour that I am trying to emulate, without being a slave >to YACC restrictions (which, for example, make it so that "zoi da weeble >da si si si si" works, but no lesser number of "si" after the zoi have >any effect. Lojban grammar was DESIGNED to be a slave to YACC restrictions, that being a working definition of LALR1 for purposes of language design. That it isn't a correct definition is irrelevant. In answer to the question in this thread, I believe that the text comment in the body of the grammar after the rule defining LohU 436 addresses the intent for interactions between si and zo and zoi. 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