Re: [lojban] Re: Is Lojban a CFG? (was Re: [lojban-beginners] Re: Enumerating in Lojban)

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

On Wed, Jul 12, 2006 at 09:24:34PM -0400, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> >3.  The lanugage would be *very* unwieldy as a CFG: way to many
> >syllables would be expended in required required terminators.
> 
> I'm not suggesting dropping the concept; I'm suggesting making
> them optional, and defining a rule or two on the semantic side of
> things to disambiguate what would be ambiguous. 

"on the semantic side of things" is inherently bad, to my mind.
What comes out of the parser should be the way a human would process
it if at all possible; in the cases we're talking about, a human
would say "na'i" or "ki'a"; I expect the parser to as well.

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/