From lojban-out@lojban.org Thu Jul 13 11:29:31 2006 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 94298 invoked from network); 13 Jul 2006 18:01:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m23.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 13 Jul 2006 18:01:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 13 Jul 2006 18:01:47 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15Qq-0006dx-Sx for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:57:01 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.49.134]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15Oz-0006cc-LD; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:55:06 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15OY-0006cQ-KY for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:54:38 -0700 Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.178]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1G15OX-0006cI-Ow for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:54:38 -0700 Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id x31so340358pye for ; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.99.14 with SMTP id b14mr935495pym; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.35.14.17 with HTTP; Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560607131054n4c96b9fcm4777599ae02fa80b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 14:54:36 -0300 In-Reply-To: <20060713165833.GP18359@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline 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> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 12181 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-list: lojban-list X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-Originating-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-Msg-Info: 1:0:0:0 X-eGroups-From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" Reply-To: jjllambias@gmail.com Subject: [lojban] Re: Is Lojban a CFG? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Enumerating in Lojban) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790; y=PFIgQrcTJZGdm0Zg8_FF87buHImpRPLaeCsPS-0k9i9SBsvG8g X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 26609 On 7/13/06, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:09:49AM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > If that's correct, then what Jonathan wants (a CFG for Lojban) is > > compatible with what Robin wants (a PEG for Lojban). > > Not really. What I want is something that parses Lojban as it's > currently defined. I care not at all what formalism does so, as > long as there is a pure formalism for it. Ok, then substitute "what Robin wants" with "what Jorge wants". I want a PEG, because I see that one strong point of PEGs is guaranteed and easy to understand unambiguity, but I also see at least one strong point of CFGs that not all PEGs have. I don't particularly want to keep the current definition just because it is the current definition. (Indeed I think it needs to be cleaned up in a few places, irrespective of CFGs.) BTW, if what you want is Lojban as defined in CLL, you would have to give up some of the improvements that were possible thanks to the use of a PEG anyway. > > At least in principle, because maybe the required PEG might be way > > too complicated to write. Or maybe not, we can at least try. > > Erm. camxes is a PEG that parses Lojban as currently defined. You > helped build it... Perhaps you meant CFG there? camxes parses Lojban as defined by camxes. It is not a perfect match for Lojban as defined in CLL, even though it's pretty close. (And some things were actually left undefined by CLL, such as the SA mess.) I meant that redefining it to make it coincide with a CFG might be too complicated (it might also be undesirable for other reasons). > > But I don't know how hard it would be to modify the whole PEG so > > that it fully corresponds to a CFG. > > I don't see the point of doing so; if we're going to make a CFG, we > should use CFGs to do so, no make a CFG-alike PEG. But then we wouldn't have unambiguity in a straightforward way. A reasonable question is why not have both if we could have both. Maybe there are good reasons not to do it (and I suspect there are some) but at least for me "that's just the way it is" is not a very convincing reason. > 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. mu'o mi'e xorxes 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.