Received: from mail-gy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.160.189])
	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <bpfk-list+bncCN673cmqFBCi0tLlBBoElxq8Nw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1P5jc0-00028q-DN; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:30:16 -0700
Received: by gyh3 with SMTP id 3sf1596496gyh.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:30:02 -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:x-vr-score
         :x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score:message-id:date:from:user-agent
         :x-accept-language:mime-version:to:subject:references: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-transfer-encoding;
        bh=a0xOoXoOi3YKf9wots6x9/aKbFmjMhT/JrSrYk6Id58=;
        b=Tv6aN1WSG2HW/xVlrQv+1moaIlILKnjnNLOrT83Mui26SWvfbi7khZRqO1jctrztBw
         y02QWIRiNdQaoYMfqco54DXdDD7YqESlfbFza/7OwrO6WvMxyk0BcJG5YjQUv+YjUGJv
         zkYiZLZl2X9rdcD44m9vEwwqVlFyMbzZehBh4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=beta;
        h=x-beenthere:received-spf:x-vr-score:x-authority-analysis:x-cm-score
         :message-id:date:from:user-agent:x-accept-language:mime-version:to
         :subject:references: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-transfer-encoding;
        b=IBSn5EC5lSySE3Woe2KRo6fV0KmbKYvmkOH/sRcO7/kemWljRnlstGjl+ypZgn78Gt
         aUYhOtuKbFxxSXnGxDG9XR2fqvyiDiiiCHvCzg1NawwyU/Dd2ZbkNx86MV4biD0Sw1PS
         m4mScr4fvWlXyrsztLCoJaa7+RMgTDe9pWX+I=
Received: by 10.101.25.15 with SMTP id c15mr1698anj.17.1286908194940;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.101.194.29 with SMTP id w29ls55308anp.1.p; Tue, 12 Oct 2010
 11:29:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.254.9 with SMTP id b9mr3621288ani.31.1286907874854;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:24:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.100.254.9 with SMTP id b9mr3578203ani.31.1286907691967;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from eastrmmtao105.cox.net (eastrmmtao105.cox.net [68.230.240.47])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id n18si5771568ana.10.2010.10.12.11.21.31;
        Tue, 12 Oct 2010 11:21:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.240.47 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.240.47;
Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119])
          by eastrmmtao105.cox.net
          (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP
          id <20101012182131.UOAV14030.eastrmmtao105.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net>
          for <bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:21:31 -0400
Received: from [192.168.0.100] ([70.179.118.163])
	by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp
	id HuMW1f00P3Xcbvq02uMWAt; Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:21:31 -0400
X-VR-Score: -100.00
X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=Of5FRk7D4fcJlrWbzxPvWNsT1UhKEYt7m7ky24PLP4c=
 c=1 sm=1 a=8nJEP1OIZ-IA:10 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:17
 a=XYzIhgvqr_3TmAguJVoA:9 a=g_yNRH4nMhZdIwJx8oAA:7
 a=0z4M6YfLUYoUVHhRHY1Cpa__JjgA:4 a=wPNLvfGTeEIA:10
 a=7ls7RdmwX4RvLZNVULbZcg==:117
X-CM-Score: 0.00
Message-ID: <4CB4A74F.9040003@lojban.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 14:22:07 -0400
From: Robert LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923)
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bpfk] BPFK work
References: <AANLkTi=2R1tYqwGzuL1oLN448q-aB3BHEcB4Z9h+5FBs@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTinFLROKSf7WLn3r82hHVLGUjTUx6VLG=MereADY@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimU6eie6HXqfVYWCKEYxBEn=uvyRk+oRbsCSyGv@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTi=5rsT0HCwd+aO+Pyt-2r6Q06jxss0zk2e+B+LE@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTimVM9COtdvBy6oH66imQOmMWXbumv3GQjYw8JhG@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB2335F.7000606@lojban.org>	<AANLkTi=eC0yrzcPj8DLqRVK+dnzQgt+-diwO0aM7rrj-@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB253D0.1020806@lojban.org>	<AANLkTikDa_qf9vK0wEeu-LsGmby0dVg5Mc7aAsMOPCEy@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTim5UyGXXc5m0aBySDaUPCXYrBh=81fyRz3om19q@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikJs4ti8DLAJ7HyOrdSdK4yxdf2QTWffdGgLw=S@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTim7rNwE0jFa9vuNZoobFh0vpKt5wO9Gw7XAwpAc@mail.gmail.com>	<AANLkTikbuZNVhZqs85t4WyWKYmLsxT4oY6a6i38Efakh@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB3576C.2000009@lojban.org>	<AANLkTinN-_hvwTXc8xuJy0HZB+Jdsv8ACYa28G72WBuj@mail.gmail.com>	<4CB48045.9050503@lojban.org> <AANLkTikWcnRDXowR_jtjOTKSGRoPEwgUjbttRGVt9CBf@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTikWcnRDXowR_jtjOTKSGRoPEwgUjbttRGVt9CBf@mail.gmail.com>
X-Original-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com:
 68.230.240.47 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain
 of lojbab@lojban.org) smtp.mail=lojbab@lojban.org
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list?hl=en_US>
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe?hl=en_US>,
 <mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Length: 2163

Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote:
> The Lojban formal grammar is (or "can be", depending on your attitude
> to the PEG grammar) well defined. The particular parser
> implementations of that grammar are not unique, there are all sorts of
> different things you may want to do with an implementation, and there
> is really no reason to pick one implementation over another. Different
> uses will make use of different implementations, all based on the same
> grammar.

Yes and no.  There can be only one correct output parse, however the=20
parser gets to it (allowing that formatting differences in the output=20
aren't different parses), or the language is not syntactically=20
unambiguous.  If the language is defined to extend into multiple units=20
called "text", the boundaries between "text"s need to be unambiguous,=20
and only a parser that accurate reflects those boundaries is "correct".

Right now, there are no formal rules governing multiple texts and their=20
possible interactions.  Perhaps there should be, but I am inclined to=20
think we should wait till the BYFY finishes the simpler "single text"=20
problem we've been stuck on for years before making the job harder.  In=20
such a case, discussing this problem at all right now is out of order.

That being said, a new speaker may wish to explicitly append onto=20
another speaker's text.  Such a problem seems to lie within the=20
"single-text" grammar, though other interpretations are probably=20
possible.  If it is, then any specific method for doing so that is not=20
already part of the language should be documented, although it should be=20
considered a change if it is not currently part of the language (and=20
therefore put off until the current language is documented).=20
Experimental cmavo of course do not need to be considered by BYFY.

lojbab

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg=
roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l=
ist?hl=3Den.