[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [jbovlaste] berbere, berberi
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 7:13 PM, John Cowan <cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wrote:
> selpa'i scripsit:
>
>> The PEG assigns rafsi to all fu'ivla, but even if you don't like the
>> PEG morphology, the CLL itself proposes fu'ivla rafsi for fu'ivla of
>> the form CCV'VCV:
>
> The reason that was just a proposal is that we could never prove that
> decompositions were unambiguous.
Surely that can't have been the reason. How did you prove that
decompositions with CCVCy- rafsi were unambiguous, and why wouldn't
the same method of proof work for CCVVCy-? The proof seems just as
easy.
> Note that a PEG grammar, unlike a YACC
> grammar, does not prove this, because PEG grammars silently override
> ambiguities using the rule "first = best". That isn't good enough for
> Lojban morphology, so I consider the CLL proposal a dead letter.
The YACC grammar doesn't handle morphology at all, so I fail to see
how this has anything to do with the issue. If the PEG morphology
isn't good enough for Lojban, then Lojban doesn't have a formal
morphology at all, because the PEG is the only one we have so far.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_______________________________________________
jbovlaste mailing list
jbovlaste@lojban.org
http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/jbovlaste