From lojban+bncCK30vq5WELG2iugEGgTXsbxv@googlegroups.com Fri Dec 10 13:27:33 2010 Received: from mail-pw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PRAUt-00017F-VW; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:33 -0800 Received: by pwi2 with SMTP id 2sf1346534pwi.16 for ; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:18 -0800 (PST) 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:date:from:to:subject:message-id :references:mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent: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=2xNMh5fFnxFDMR+NF8sctHKGSWFXR3O2ryR5BqPU1Fg=; b=tCFsxxC/hPJyG+kzxhjclnjaxH2vX6SMq0dHLeedMtN+hGcQjNF3YDKYvhVJRWlPw5 EBiGVOxjNMR3nDifjd/Ncnylhp6RX2ty99wkTZm3TbG993kx/82R7zHCMs2DfdHq0wts WRLgEJXMCoYMbd5bZTqvZSwgfnsFYNqV8GmQ0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:date:from:to:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:in-reply-to:user-agent: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=fZtXtvgKp56uvY266briU2XTbEEeRxADM8ZtM/tzdiY+O0EF+dUyrHZHxwhrG0rpL0 chN85V4mZlUr8pHwnO0GvN3gg6n9qzlckvk6Bud30g1PLYMzti0P6ILteqjylGNljgn+ /LMfvfB/DaIQUw4OgycT2Oh9vKElKmq2eZeC8= Received: by 10.142.208.5 with SMTP id f5mr62860wfg.4.1292016433874; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.2.41 with SMTP id 41ls4556119wfb.0.p; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.204.13 with SMTP id b13mr839154wfg.67.1292016433259; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.204.13 with SMTP id b13mr839153wfg.67.1292016433229; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org (digitalkingdom.org [173.13.139.234]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n6si3876534wfl.3.2010.12.10.13.27.13; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:13 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) client-ip=173.13.139.234; Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PRAUi-00010x-Fa for lojban@googlegroups.com; Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:12 -0800 Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 13:27:12 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Lojban CFG Questions Message-ID: <20101210212712.GH27025@digitalkingdom.org> References: <201012101024.39320.roman_naumann@fastmail.fm> <20101210212120.GG27025@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20101210212120.GG27025@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) X-Original-Sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org designates 173.13.139.234 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=rlpowell@digitalkingdom.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, Dec 10, 2010 at 01:21:21PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > That, in a nutshell, is the elidable terminator problem: making > terminators act as though they were included when they actually > weren't, but the sentence parses if they were (and doesn't if they > weren't). > > You have to solve it *without* significantly changing the > definition of "sentence" I gave you. I suddenly have this creepy feeling that there might be a solution sitting right there. You have to solve it *without* significantly changing the definition of "sentence" I gave you *to end up with anything that looks like the current grammar*. What if you don't think about it in terms of the current structure at all, though? Right now we have something like: sentence -> sumti* klama sumti* sumti -> "mi" | "lenu" sentence "ku"? Where * and ? have their usual regex meanings. We call "ku" an elidable *terminator*; it terminates the sumti. What if we called it an elidable *seperator*, and instead did this: sentence -> mi-sumti klama | lenu-sumti "ku" klama | mi-sumti le-nu sumti "ku" klama | ... mi-sumti -> "mi" lenu-sumti -> "lenu" sentence That is, promote the "ku" one level up. Would this make it CFG-able? Could you still end up with something like Lojban? I think you *probably* end up with rule explosion and/or something not at all like current Lojban, but I wanted to throw it out in case I'm missing something. -Robin -- http://singinst.org/ : Our last, best hope for a fantastic future. Lojban (http://www.lojban.org/): The language in which "this parrot is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this sentence is false" is "na nei". My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/ -- 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.