[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI
At 01:40 PM 5/7/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> >
> > --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > > What does {da zo si si} do?
> > >
> > > It *should* result in just 'da', because zo is defined as turning
> > > itself and the next argument into a single word. zoi is *not* so
> > > defined.
> >
> > Is there a justification for that difference?
>
>Huh.
>
>I'm sorry, I thought that that difference was explicitely stated
>somewhere, but I can't find it. The Red Book doesn't seem to say
>whether or not "zo da" is treated as a single word at all.
>
>So unless I'm missing something, all we have to go on is grammar.300,
>which says:
>
>a. If the Lojban word "zoi" (selma'o ZOI) is identified, take the
>following Lojban word (which should be end delimited with a pause for
>separation from the following non-Lojban text) as an opening delimiter.
>Treat all text following that delimiter, until that delimiter recurs
>*after a pause*, as grammatically a single token (labelled
>'anything_699' in this grammar). There is no need for processing within
>this text except as necessary to find the closing delimiter.
>
>b. If the Lojban word "zo" (selma'o ZO) is identified, treat the
>following Lojban word as a token labelled 'any_word_698', instead of
>lexing it by its normal grammatical function.
>
>So "zoi da de da" is turned into four tokens, "zoi da anything_699 da"
>and "zo da" is turned into the single token "any_word_698".
>
>It is this behaviour that I am trying to emulate, without being a slave
>to YACC restrictions (which, for example, make it so that "zoi da weeble
>da si si si si" works, but no lesser number of "si" after the zoi have
>any effect.
Lojban grammar was DESIGNED to be a slave to YACC restrictions, that being
a working definition of LALR1 for purposes of language design. That it
isn't a correct definition is irrelevant.
In answer to the question in this thread, I believe that the text comment
in the body of the grammar after the rule defining LohU 436 addresses the
intent for interactions between si and zo and zoi.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/L5YrjA/eSIIAA/yQLSAA/GSaulB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lojban/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lojban-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/