From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRCSwOflBBoEljLyQw@googlegroups.com Sat Oct 16 10:25:56 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P7AVz-0007Gg-DB; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:55 -0700 Received: by wyb39 with SMTP id 39sf1066076wyb.16 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:44 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=vuQ6+8gcXLJ8LOh9dbixtyLiWFH5kLDCtVHPuWvOePE=; b=SlkGa9M8B6KiDz6Ie9vE+kZyKXIu/a+Xjzd6KLUzGksZJfh+Ac0yMdwCNp3H5OBpAR Z+iB8GdeZTC4Ev6decoPIjHgyY52iqT1aEuy9R18xba0FNHKrKPhIciJdaqEXWkb4V/A JFeQ8FRyiS6v4mOfVJAFdfimQmt9D6dKSDNZA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=ZIKu2nhoN/4Mh7jbkHOLFytbBv6qhiYo+kJQPs1mydHan0PgCkc9uiLwCd9q/Olga3 CBDMxlsIQcWry4j7wcv1KweptdYYKs+Exx7KAdb1Io2MVNsa/jqN7R4SMoRqS9obIdI1 Q2NZOYEFgr7tk72anbHOgKrVpd+e0OKXeTzQU= Received: by 10.216.231.154 with SMTP id l26mr174402weq.24.1287249938589; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.216.198.162 with SMTP id v34ls2039024wen.3.p; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.19.147 with SMTP id n19mr87553wen.8.1287249937448; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.19.147 with SMTP id n19mr87552wen.8.1287249937430; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (mail-wy0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id v4si4349633weq.9.2010.10.16.10.25.36; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; Received: by wyb40 with SMTP id 40so2106091wyb.34 for ; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:25:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.145.208 with SMTP id e16mr2435428wbv.164.1287249602902; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:20:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.227.145.130 with HTTP; Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:20:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <385d6b2f-c484-494b-9241-6d7429ce0ec3@p20g2000prf.googlegroups.com> <20101014234221.GC2916@alice.local> Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:20:02 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Questions on isolating utterances before completely parsing From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 1:46 PM, symuyn wrote: > > In reply to Mr. Jones, I'd love to hear from xorxes, and other people, > if eliding LIhU, etc. is "looked down upon". That would definitely > shift my deciding toward prohibiting eliding LIhU, etc. But, if LIhU, > etc. are elided *a lot*, then the text editor ought to be able to > handle that. They are not elided a lot, if only because they need very special contexts in order to be elidable. I would make them non-elidable if it was my choice. > But, is it worth making a text editor *at all* if it > can't parse *all* Lojban, including Lojban that validly elides LIhU, > etc.? I think so, yes. But, there may be another problem you may also have to deal with. Things like "zo ni'o" and ".i bu" are not sentence separators. So, will they be handled by the lexer? But not every "zo ni'o" sequence is a sumti. In "zo zo ni'o", the "ni'o" does start a new paragraph. You may have to parse the whole thing anyway before you can tell whether a given "ni'o", ".i", "lu", etc. is "active" or not. mu'o mi'e xorxes -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.