On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:21:30PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Jordan DeLong scripsit:
> > Anyway, I dunno why the text rule allows a nai at the start,
>
> It's probably overkill. What we thought was useful was to have "nai"
> by itself, for dialogues like this:
>
> A: .ui.
> B: nai
For this why didn't you put it in the fragment rule?
> > Other than the problem with making too many sentences legal, I would
> > complain that it complicates the parse tree of things like {mi
> > na.enai do klama}. The first "na" is handled at the same level as
> > the .e and as part of the structure there. But the second "nai"
> > (if in UI) is handled at a lower level of the parser (where it
> > allows UIs after any word).
>
> The official parser trawls forward (backtracking on failure) and slurps
> up things like "na.enai".
???
Judging by your response, you probably misunderstood me. But I
don't understand your point, so I can't say for sure...
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
pgp00459.pgp
Description: PGP signature