Re: [lojban] Re: erasure words

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Not with just sa, no, but "sa le si si" will do it in my parser.  I
> agree that that's a bit bulky, though.

The original intention of "sa" was to erase the current partial sentence.
Typically you'd follow "sa" with ".i", although it wasn't necessary
under the original rules.  I got the clever idea of extending the usability
of "sa" by allowing it to erase back to the beginning of the current
constituent, where the next cmavo told you what the "current constituent"
was.  Imperfect but useful.

If you have "le le broda ku brode sa sa le brodi", what does that do
currently?  Do you handle repeated sa's at all?

> 2.  I honestly don't think that you understand how hard a problem Lojban
> grammar is to implement.
> 
> WRT point #2: John Cowan, please accept my apology; you were right.
> (John said the same thing to me when I started worknig on this).

/me chuckles.

Think nothing of it.

-- 
Ambassador Trentino: I've said enough. I'm a man of few words.
Rufus T. Firefly: I'm a man of one word: scram!
        --Duck Soup                     John Cowan <jcowan@reutershealth.com>