Re: [lojban] Re: Official parser and "lo ni'a zu crino"

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 10:48:46AM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > --- jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:
> > > 
> > > I will not support, however, any structural changes that *could* be
> > > made as a result of going to infinite-lookahead grammar: no A/JA
> > > merger, e.g. For one thing, human beings don't support infinite
> > > lookahead.  But I am okay with accepting things like "le broda joi
> > > le brodi", since that is not truly an ambiguity but just the result
> > > of smarter resolution of elidable terminators than Yacc allows.
> > 
> > Isn't that self-contradictory? Why is infinite-lookahead acceptable
> > for JOI but not for JE? 
> 
> Because JA/A is formalized in the grammar; elidable terminators are not.

Is JOI formalized in the grammar? If not, why not?
If yes, how does {lo broda je lo brode} require infinite-lookahead
but {lo broda joi lo brode} does not? I'm afraid I don't understand
what the problem would be.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/