[lojban] Re: Official parser problem?

[Robin Lee Powell <lojban-out@lojban.org>]

On Thu, Mar 18, 2004 at 09:08:41AM +0100, GREGORY DYKE wrote:
> john and Robin:
> > > The definition of "sa" is straightforward: check the selma'o of
> > > the next token rightward, and remove tokens leftward until a token
> > > of the same selma'o has been removed (in the usual extended sense
> > > of "selma'o").
> > 
> > <blink>
> > 
> > Oh!
> > 
> > Heck, I can do that *now*.  I'll fix 'si' first, though.
> 
> I would like to suggest another, IMO more usable definition of sa:
> 
> check the single word to the right of sa, and remove words leftward
> until the same word has been removed.
> 
> thus: "ti cmalu xunre nixlu ckule sa xunre nanla ckule" is equivalent
> to: "ti cmalu xunre nanla ckule"
> 
> (a multi sumti bridi with the following word of selma'o LO would be a
> better example)
> 
> what do you think?

That's how I, and others, have been using it.  The difference between
the two definitions (for purposes of modifying my experimental grammar)
is not large, but John's is actually easier to encode.

I think Greg's is much more human-friendly, though.

-Robin

-- 
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***   I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies."  -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/             ***              .i cimo'o prali .ui