[lojban] Re: another sentence to try the parser on

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

On Sun, Mar 28, 2004 at 02:03:04PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> {le gerku pe naku cu klama ti} is valid according to jbofi'e, but {le
> naku gerku cu klama ti} is not. 

Both my parser and the official one agree on both those points.

The reason is simple:

    sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier? selbri relative-clauses? / 
	quantifier sumti

If that last word was "term" and not "sumti", this would work.  By way
of comparison:

    relative-clause <- GOI free* term (GEhU free*)? / 
	NOI free* subsentence (KUhO free*)?

The "naku" case is in term, which is a *parent* for sumti.

> I can't see what this genstura is good for, except to translate the
> King's remarks at the beginning of the chapter.

It's actually just a side effect of being able to use 'naku' in general.

IMO, nothing much would be changed by moving NA KU to sumti, since term
calls sumti anyways.  I'd like to see a good reason, though, and as you
point out there isn't one.

-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