From lojban+bncCLr6ktCfBBCXxqzmBBoE1QaNEw@googlegroups.com Fri Oct 29 12:40:24 2010 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PBuoG-00010p-FD; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:24 -0700 Received: by yxe42 with SMTP id 42sf4909395yxe.16 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:14 -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:received:received:date:from:to :subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references:mime-version :in-reply-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 :content-disposition; bh=u1OZ0Xup2zWKDvtDgX619x30Z8izfRb1c6cBZoQwDDU=; b=QPsxdW8kUF/PBCs7yWW4TYkbbZhkOZTwM0cNM7AQXoThDhDB2gF/C/ZDt9Du9llkbO n7VYiVMWfVGH36upirvy+9WbchfgVv66+gbePDOD8/dLd8ZV129dFwDj9lx5kEO40zeb foyCdN3asc6iEuEf+CJr3WQsJsRSwS4cbMRDM= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:in-reply-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 :content-disposition; b=Pe2PSOqL6w4vI0lIogLqSH3r12AwfCIIpCk6ajItuA7FnAvAtzU7M8n9sdYDoklazk hXlVIDgO2D/5SbMpEkmPfCD2q9hFgOk2rtH7H0ssez3dk35CKFkKoXAbU150/umG9/AL a2GMslU01/7r+VqgQ8EkVBqcyvMTLwXbmiINM= Received: by 10.151.62.4 with SMTP id p4mr1956129ybk.72.1288381207968; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.101.164.26 with SMTP id r26ls1074176ano.4.p; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.241.12 with SMTP id o12mr1392862anh.36.1288381207398; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.100.241.12 with SMTP id o12mr1392861anh.36.1288381207364; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-gw0-f53.google.com (mail-gw0-f53.google.com [74.125.83.53]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id b3si914924ana.6.2010.10.29.12.40.07; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 74.125.83.53 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) client-ip=74.125.83.53; Received: by mail-gw0-f53.google.com with SMTP id 1so2399424gwb.12 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.150.97.1 with SMTP id u1mr23291616ybb.2.1288381206921; Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (173-10-243-253-Albuquerque.hfc.comcastbusiness.net [173.10.243.253]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id r29sm7037211ybn.10.2010.10.29.12.40.04 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:40:01 -0600 From: ".alyn.post." To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] questions about peg grammar Message-ID: <20101029194001.GI47249@alice.local> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: alyn.post@lodockikumazvati.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 74.125.83.53 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) smtp.mail=alanpost@sunflowerriver.org 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 Content-Disposition: inline On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 03:36:09PM -0400, Luke Bergen wrote: > Ok, so I'm trying to get a feel for how the peg grammar handles lujvo so > that I can make my parser be as close to the real deal as possible (i.e. > not a sloppy hack). I have a question though. I think the relevant section > that I want to understand is the following, correct? > ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > lujvo <- !gismu !fuhivla !cmavo initial-rafsi* brivla-core > brivla-core <- fuhivla / gismu / CVV-final-rafsi / stressed-initial-rafsi > short-final-rafsi > stressed-initial-rafsi <- stressed-extended-rafsi / stressed-y-rafsi / > stressed-y-less-rafsi > initial-rafsi <- extended-rafsi / y-rafsi / !any-extended-rafsi > y-less-rafsi > any-extended-rafsi <- fuhivla / extended-rafsi / stressed-extended-rafsi > ;----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Now, I may be reading this incorrectly, but wouldn't this mean that an > initial rafsi followed by a fuhivla would be considered a lujvo? i.e. > {bracidrspageti}? > This is a bit tricky. Look at the early part of the lujvo definition, and you can see there is a predicate-not operation saying "it can't have a fuhivla" (That is the !fuhivla). So when the brivla-core matches, even through brivla-core is capable of having a fuhivla, it won't ever have one in this case, because the earlier predicate-not operation in the lujvo nonterminal won't let one be there. -Alan -- .i ko djuno fi le do sevzi -- 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.