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

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

On Fri, Apr 09, 2004 at 02:04:38PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> 
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> 
> > The point that you seem to be missing is that "lo broda joi lo
> > brode" requires infinite lookahead only to insert the elidable
> > terminators, i.e. to read it as "lo broda ku joi lo brode ku". 
> 
> That's what I thought. 

Actually, in that case it only requires 2 token lookahead.  I haven't
thought about the general case very much.

> But then what does John mean when he says:
> 
> > > > > > 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
> 
> How can he reject {le broda je le brode} on the grounds that humans
> don't support infinite lookahead while in the same paragraph accept
> {le broda joi le brode}? Isn't that self-contradictory?

I don't think that he meant it that way, hence "For one thing".  I'm
fairly certain that I spoke for him in my long explanation, but he'll
have to speak for himself.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***  I'm a *male* Robin.
"Many philosophical problems are caused by such things as the simple
inability to shut up." -- David Stove, liberally paraphrased.
http://www.lojban.org/  ***  loi pimlu na srana .i ti rocki morsi