From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Nov 25 03:51:17 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:51:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L4wRp-0007Rj-5Z for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:51:17 -0800 Received: from rv-out-0506.google.com ([209.85.198.224]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L4wRm-0007RV-Dq for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:51:17 -0800 Received: by rv-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id f9so1219999rvb.3 for ; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:51:13 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to :subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=vDhgJ0/uOy8iYBsa53VwLe4IAMtnJB2DFQnknVrlTMw=; b=kcJirSUpWHxZ57qor4GL6B/j28Oz6EzAalNQl76k1Q70uK92KnFns9xEPjvqlC3RiJ sP7tB2aMAVgqgJdu/lguwaIiBy9q5c2Y4y3uwSTWWmQztyGk7S87otAUnevUgmKbPXL6 JvQorum662XpHwJoZEERXShFhb09qacEi4w7Q= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=MSWrp4hHlyx5Zf4XW53i3M7HepUM1IXSrUMjHXgVoW4lPZ5CIA3O5HAERAyHgsgHfo bATnrD9NOpY2ZKI6bNGWgDp8cHw60LdIeU8AsRpmPq3QHhz+PtmIP20PoAt1fjU9ACE2 jVYPjF4ZMscv6BBy8hgUMpPrTobk7sRWvgA+g= Received: by 10.140.250.14 with SMTP id x14mr2396772rvh.79.1227613873319; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:51:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.141.194.15 with HTTP; Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:51:13 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <925d17560811250351p7e2a339dve9727fa4e9553c4c@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2008 08:51:13 -0300 From: "=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?=" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: peg experiment with changing clauses to better support sa In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <925d17560811230724h69cf1497q66302b98045002ba@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15070 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:14 PM, Stephen Pollei wrote: > I didn't know about any earlier working version. I also don't know any > url where I can find earlier working versions. Hopefully Robin has it saved somewhere. It was something similar to what you have, with a repeated pattern of rules for each selma'o. > Not sure why you would have sumti-SA and selbri-SA, so I > think we are maybe talking about completely different things. For example, if you want to erase "lo broda" and replace it with "re lo broda". "lo broda cu sa re lo broda cu brode". The idea is that SA doesn't just look at the following word to know how far back to delete, but to the folowing construct. I sill think this is only marginally better than the selmaho version though. > Also I think correctness over prettyness, might be a priority; at > least have a complete but ugly version and a pretty but incomplete > version. Yes, but first we need to know what the correct behavior is supposed to be. SU is used when you are getting nowhere with your utterance and you want to make a fresh start. That's a reasonable thing to have, and easy for the human parser to handle. SI is used to replace the last word with something else. Somewhat artificial, but at least clear enough and not impossibly hard to follow. But what do we want SA to do? Searching back for the last appearance of some particular selmaho in speech is an extremely hard thing to do, and then on top of that you have to start reprocessing from there, keeping what you had before and continuing with something else? That may work for machines, but for human beings? In my opinion, that's the issue we have to solve for SA before working out the grammar in detail. Selmaho driven replacement is not a human friendly option, in my opinion. 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.