From lojban+bncCLr6ktCfBBCktIPqBBoEJNeYZA@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 26 18:36:37 2011 Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PiHiq-0002Ix-VQ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:37 -0800 Received: by yxn35 with SMTP id 35sf749682yxn.16 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:26 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature: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; bh=JlXe4O1UT0VQY0o7omTDSOLhBoaX6dNee9vDU5h910I=; b=mwI8SDs+naV7PwvUml9IzhUOsChaoXUqMlGzW9aDW4NHp0rstJT964cdyf8BuKu1Sn PKZg1xxwAJeGyMBjmVUJrFr595sHmQ3D7lCgNuqlxOMBjzOVfT2O/2vwvuqzvSjSkpvo sl2XhWZGkOnejRdZyBDLh1CbudxZnLk4AERQI= 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=zCSnHo1Me2DZY6i6w6uNKkIOcqmeLQy3hbKLYuJ6c3a97seLtTifyXa2ifuiQE7nNj 6Y7CpoHuRLPRoV6VsWcSuCFSAQ7s0PJy6TcoDFxw6p16zmC0DZKEVKtOf8yZTgb7MXQt v/HegGASM+GBLByqmvmTDXFwalpjCJOGTRJvk= Received: by 10.147.98.9 with SMTP id a9mr24013yam.17.1296095780709; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:20 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.100.56.38 with SMTP id e38ls248702ana.3.p; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.32.16 with SMTP id f16mr65492anf.44.1296095779038; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.32.16 with SMTP id f16mr65491anf.44.1296095779019; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-gw0-f42.google.com (mail-gw0-f42.google.com [74.125.83.42]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id i10si5934677anh.8.2011.01.26.18.36.18 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 74.125.83.42 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of alanpost@sunflowerriver.org) client-ip=74.125.83.42; Received: by gwj23 with SMTP id 23so645512gwj.15 for ; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.100.109.3 with SMTP id h3mr168454anc.42.1296095778768; Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:18 -0800 (PST) Received: from sunflowerriver.org (c-68-35-167-179.hsd1.nm.comcast.net [68.35.167.179]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t23sm19784871ano.6.2011.01.26.18.36.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 26 Jan 2011 18:36:17 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2011 19:36:14 -0700 From: ".alyn.post." To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] proposed grammar definition for ZOhOI Message-ID: <20110127023614.GE38730@alice.local> Mail-Followup-To: lojban@googlegroups.com References: <20110125204806.GB35838@alice.local> <20110126033008.GA37422@alice.local> <20110126035654.GB37422@alice.local> <20110126185729.GC38730@alice.local> 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: 74.125.83.42 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 Wed, Jan 26, 2011 at 08:18:02PM -0500, Alex Rozenshteyn wrote: > pe'i there should be 3 ways of writing lojban: > After a brief brainstorm, I could support these three modes in my parser should that be desireable. > 1. Strict: the only characters allowed (barring alphabet shifts) are > lojban characters. The PEG grammar currently allows digits and some punctuation. I'd need to add an immediate rule when these productions are matched to reject those productions if strict mode was enable and forbidden characters appear. > 2. Visually mnemonic: characters such as quotation marks and parentheses > etc. are allowed to make skimming the text easier; there is no need to > standardize (although suggestions might be welcome) what means what > because the characters will be ignored (treated as whitespace) by the > parser, and so every spoken syllable will still need to be spelled > out. This is how the PEG grammar works now. I believe my parser allows more punctuation than camxes, which is a trivial fix should that be a problem. > 3. Visual shorthand: It will develop anyway, so it's best to standardize > it. e.g. {xu} can be *replaced* by a question mark, {to} and {to'o} > might be *replaced* by left and right parentheses, etc. It would make > sense to speak of {xubu}, the grapheme representing the cmavo {xu} > This would require defining what this visual shorthand was and modifying any rule affected. It would also require not permitting the defined shorthand punctuation to be whitespace. -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.