From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jul 13 11:09:27 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:09:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15ca-00077O-2Y for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:09:08 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15cZ-00077H-Q3 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:09:07 -0700 Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 11:09:07 -0700 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Is Lojban a CFG? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Enumerating in Lojban) Message-ID: <20060713180907.GV18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20060713003616.GD18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060713013545.GF18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060713025542.GH18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560607130709u3fef60c5ubd8f638c795685c0@mail.gmail.com> <20060713165833.GP18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <925d17560607131054n4c96b9fcm4777599ae02fa80b@mail.gmail.com> <20060713180036.GU18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060713180036.GU18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 From: Robin Lee Powell X-archive-position: 12183 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 Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:00:36AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:54:36PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > On 7/13/06, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > > > >I just don't see the point of butchering Lojban to make a CFG > > >that encodes a language that is almost, but not quite, Lojban. > > > > It wouldn't be butchering it, just extending it. > > I don't see it that way, myself. I rather like the current > behaviour (barfing on wierd input). I want to clarify that a bit: I don't see the point of doing it, but that doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea; I think I will not find the results useful; that doesn't mean you shouldn't try it. Maybe I'm wrong, and I will like the results, who knows? What I *do* know is that anything that parses Lojban without outputting a parse tree that matches the speaker's desired semantics (assuming the speaker understands all the rules and has made no mistakes) is *absoluetly* un-interesting to me, but I don't think that's what you're talking about. Just wast to be clear. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.