From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon May 10 12:46:36 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 30646 invoked from network); 10 May 2004 19:46:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.172) by m24.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 May 2004 19:46:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta4.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 May 2004 19:46:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BNGjI-0006yJ-Av for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 10 May 2004 12:46:24 -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 4.31) id 1BNGie-0006xs-AH; Mon, 10 May 2004 12:45:44 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 10 May 2004 12:45:41 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.31) id 1BNGiT-0006xd-Mj for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 10 May 2004 12:45:33 -0700 Date: Mon, 10 May 2004 12:45:33 -0700 Message-ID: <20040510194533.GL5570@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040510191837.GK5570@digitalkingdom.org> <20040510193718.13449.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040510193718.13449.qmail@web41902.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7754 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 X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 22217 On Mon, May 10, 2004 at 12:37:18PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > My parser handles it exactly the same way in "mi broda lo zei zei > > da" and "mi broda zei zei da". > > How come those are not "mi broda lo-zei-zei da" and "mi broda-zei-zei > da"? Prioritization. ZEI clauses are actually fairly far down the tanru-unit list in the BNF, which is what I started with. > > "zei bu" you seem to be correct on, and that follows from their > > relative priorities. I've just told BU to not work on ZEI, ever, to > > avoid that special case. > > When you have "zei zei" you have to decide which one acts as glue and > which one as lujvo component. Why would you take the second one as > glue? See above. This may not be the 'right' thing, of course. > > > When zo fights with these words directly, it always wins: {zo si}, > > > {zo bu}, {zo zei}, so I don't see any reason for it not to win > > > when it fights with them over a third word. If {zo da} can be a > > > single word for {bu} and for {zei} to grab, > > > > Is that exactly the question that we're discussing? As far as I can > > tell, zo da is *never* considered a single word. > > In the current grammar, that's correct. > > > The official parser doesn't accept "zo da bu", nor "zo da zei > > broda", so I'm not sure where you get the idea that "{zo da} can be > > a single word for {bu} and for {zei} to grab" ? > > If "da zei de" can be a single word for bu, why can't "zo da" be a > single word for bu? As I haven't the slightest idea why ZEI was handled in a way different from every other preprocessor token, I don't have a good answer for that. > Do you prefer to leave {zo a bu} as broken instead of giving it one of > the two obvious possible meanings? Not particularily. -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