From lojban+bncCOjSjrXVGBC0irnpBBoEwS4HzA@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 12 16:20:25 2011 Received: from mail-yw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.213.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PdAvJ-0005xw-F7; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:25 -0800 Received: by ywh1 with SMTP id 1sf820114ywh.16 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature: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; bh=fTmXyBOGmiiE0tT6EVzN7I5ed7evhLxrgt7jh46+6nM=; b=kXS/HzlJOX5SgNfZo7ra+16Fn07dT3lPAhvKVoRgMbPkSod3lEqTB027qljJPnuEis UybYkghvriQHd6dgREuYq2emgQO6VGrIdXhyJeI4krYk9zuUvWtIE8qCoQpnH0Ct7qQ5 3zAtC71poDizS2KMNywVpPRPD8Ojp9XeqY8T4= 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=UXXzD5XFLvYm0Yhw8sWFkMEmbLA0pG4cOZEdZedlxquoyZw7HRZR2z4KO8PKDSFgsL SUach3LNT9teAEyqprhzxaALLOryhbFEyuhDD1OiUnJ+aUHQCXAxLKuJTVSaXs56igU8 YTOxDCj+MxduoYCsIpxEZphVJ89bS8K6J/nGk= Received: by 10.100.172.3 with SMTP id u3mr57110ane.61.1294878004693; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:04 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.57.97 with SMTP id b33ls1246358ibh.0.p; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.35.13 with SMTP id n13mr1358752ibd.9.1294878003610; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.35.13 with SMTP id n13mr1358750ibd.9.1294878003568; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iw0-f169.google.com (mail-iw0-f169.google.com [209.85.214.169]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cu19si280354ibb.5.2011.01.12.16.20.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.169; Received: by mail-iw0-f169.google.com with SMTP id 40so1058709iwn.14 for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.35.1 with SMTP id n1mr1785541ibd.0.1294878002302; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:02 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.200.148 with HTTP; Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:02 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110113001636.GT2132@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20110112141124.GA866@alice.local> <20110112184918.GP2132@digitalkingdom.org> <20110112234509.GB1262@alice.local> <20110113000444.GS2132@digitalkingdom.org> <20110113001636.GT2132@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2011 19:20:02 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] any-word-SA-handling clarification From: Luke Bergen To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: lukeabergen@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of lukeabergen@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.169 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=lukeabergen@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=002215046b875ad1510499af47a8 --002215046b875ad1510499af47a8 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 so, being the benevolent dictator for life of the bpfk that you are, can you just define it that way? From what I'm hearing, it sounds like it doesn't have a very firm definition as it is now. On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Robin Lee Powell < rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:14:01PM -0500, Luke Bergen wrote: > > With all this talk of {sa}, what about {ra}? It seems like it > > would have a similar set of issues. > > No, not at all. With {sa} you have to be able to emit arbitrary > bullshit and at the end it's still grammatical. At the *parser* > level. {ra} issues are purely semantic; how to parse it is not in > question. > > > ta'onai when I see {sa} I usually assume something like "cut all > > the words back to the last {.i}". Is coding something like that > > in PEG possible? > > Trivial. That would be a *fantastic* version of {sa} from a parsing > perspective. Sooooo much better than the current version. > > -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. > > -- 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. --002215046b875ad1510499af47a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable so, being the benevolent dictator for life of the bpfk that you are, can yo= u just define it that way? =A0From what I'm hearing, it sounds like it = doesn't have a very firm definition as it is now.

On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 7:16 PM, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org= > wrote:
On Wed, Jan 12, 2011 at 07:14:01PM -0500, Luke Bergen wro= te:
> With all this talk of {sa}, what about {ra}? =A0It seems like it
> would have a similar set of issues.

No, not at all. =A0With {sa} you have to be able to emit arbitrary bullshit and at the end it's still grammatical. =A0At the *parser*
level. =A0{ra} issues are purely semantic; how to parse it is not in
question.

> ta'onai when I see {sa} I usually assume something like "cut = all
> the words back to the last {.i}". =A0Is coding something like tha= t
> in PEG possible?

Trivial. =A0That would be a *fantastic* version of {sa} from a parsin= g
perspective. =A0Sooooo much better than the current version.

-Robin

--
http://singinst.org/= : =A0Our last, best hope for a fantastic future.
Lojban (http://www.loj= ban.org/): The language in which "this parrot
is dead" is "ti poi spitaki cu morsi", but "this senten= ce is false"
is "na nei". =A0 My personal page: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/rlp/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.


--
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--002215046b875ad1510499af47a8--