[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[lojban-beginners] Re: ku before fa'u (was: Re: lo mlatu lo gerku ma kau frica)
- To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: ku before fa'u (was: Re: lo mlatu lo gerku ma kau frica)
- From: "Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 13:45:03 -0300
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=0GNZ96RzChWAqDKxUeC+qalL/Uj1VssUrkDO0F90cmM=; b=oMeR5KOIzJ3ioyL9+xUdFSetJ7uGi6Lm/3eoozcWnrBipLgGl5JG970+a1u2B6d3HOYOrRSt/EDBWLetAodR3r7+edD/bPJd8ORpc5SfmUB3wUCiRwOQ/gNnILZL3iDhn47eSS9UMMJbqGmp8CwbnL4cUAMMFvKB04GHyVI4f0w=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=FGlQHWlb1HPf/gnBfQVp5fX86FBU8hDv6Jas2h33bPzxXyYIbQCgyVSEQsK3i9ncrYpe/KjR1VaOm7QaFbGuMztgIHn8CPKtlghgtj0BFaAdfh0sakV60NVyzT5AC0QfFUixMGmb4enns4arC1N6JuM2NNiGwh4FJuVTTZ/tMmo=
- In-reply-to: <4720AC9E.2090208@perpetuum-immobile.de>
- References: <47239A9C@webmail.bcpl.net> <4720AC9E.2090208@perpetuum-immobile.de>
- Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
- Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
On 10/25/07, Timo Paulssen <timonator@perpetuum-immobile.de> wrote:
> turnip wrote:
> > (note: the ku is not grammatically necessary, but jboski doesn't like it
> > without it)
>
> this is not correct. the ku is needed, because fa'u is of selma'o JOI,
> which means it can connect either brivla together or sumti.
The (currently) official parser does require {ku} there, but it is not actually
needed for unambiguous parsing.
> this has something to do with the type of grammar, that it has to be
> able to identify what to join with one token of read-ahead or something
> similar.
Right, but Lojban grammar is not, in general, parsable with one token
lookahead. The official parser deals with this with a preparsing stage where
it handles numbers and other stuff.
Since Lojban grammar is not and cannot be LALR(1), it doesn't make
much sense to make the {ku} obligatory in that context, and parsers
such as camxes don't require it.
mu'o mi'e xorxes