From lojban-out@lojban.org Wed Jul 12 19:02:47 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 56249 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2006 01:37:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m35.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Jul 2006 01:37:28 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2006 01:37:28 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0q8i-0003bB-52 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:37:16 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0q7g-0003aE-Om; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:36:16 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:36:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0q7G-0003Zm-2e for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:35:46 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G0q7F-0003Zf-P3 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:35:45 -0700 Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2006 18:35:45 -0700 Message-ID: <20060713013545.GF18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20060713003616.GD18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 X-archive-position: 12167 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -3.2 (---) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Is Lojban a CFG? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Enumerating in Lojban) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=SMJGRxNrngrDVbnvP6UrzskZQuYeWOno1K9dJTo41s-j2qAQDw X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26594 On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Jonathan Gibbons wrote: > >3. The lanugage would be *very* unwieldy as a CFG: way to many > >syllables would be expended in required required terminators. > > I'm not suggesting dropping the concept; I'm suggesting making > them optional, and defining a rule or two on the semantic side of > things to disambiguate what would be ambiguous. "on the semantic side of things" is inherently bad, to my mind. What comes out of the parser should be the way a human would process it if at all possible; in the cases we're talking about, a human would say "na'i" or "ki'a"; I expect the parser to as well. -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.