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

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

On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 11:00:36AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2006 at 02:54:36PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > On 7/13/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >I just don't see the point of butchering Lojban to make a CFG
> > >that encodes a language that is almost, but not quite, Lojban.
> > 
> > It wouldn't be butchering it, just extending it.
> 
> I don't see it that way, myself.  I rather like the current
> behaviour (barfing on wierd input).

I want to clarify that a bit: I don't see the point of doing it, but
that doesn't mean I think it's a bad idea; I think I will not find
the results useful; that doesn't mean you shouldn't try it.  Maybe
I'm wrong, and I will like the results, who knows?

What I *do* know is that anything that parses Lojban without
outputting a parse tree that matches the speaker's desired semantics
(assuming the speaker understands all the rules and has made no
mistakes) is *absoluetly* un-interesting to me, but I don't think
that's what you're talking about.  Just wast to be clear.

-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/