Re: [lojban] "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1)

[John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>]

Robin Lee Powell scripsit:

> Am I correct in my belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong with
> accepting the first case, given the infinite lookahead required to
> realize that the remainder is a gek-sentence and that the pu *must* end
> immediately?

I'm a little cautious about totally identifying "pu" and "pu ku"
semantically, despite the expansive claims of the Red Book on the
subject, because I do not know what to do when the tense involves a
-roi quantification.

Consider these four sentences:

1)	da poi cribe roroiku zo'u da xagji
2)	roroiku da poi cribe zo'u da xagji
3)	da poi cribe roroi xagji
4)	roroi xagji fa da poi cribe

There is no doubt that 1 means there's a bear that's always hungry (false)
and that 2 means there's always a hungry bear somewhere (true), and that
4 is the same as 2.  The question is, is 3 the same as 2 or the same as 1?
Arguing by analogy with na vs. naku, it's the same as 2, because the tense
before the selbri is placed at the left end of the prenex, just as a na
before the selbri is.  Arguing that na vs. naku is a special case that
ought not to be imitated, 3 is the same as 1.  I lean toward the latter,
and it follows from what the Red Book says, but I'm not 100% sure of it.

> In other words, is the fact that the first case doesn't work a pure
> LR(1) issue, or am I missing some ambiguity that allowing the first case
> introduces?

If the above doubt can be cleared away, then I would say there's no
problem.  History shows, however, that I'm not very good at spotting
lurking ambiguities.

Sorry not to be more helpful.

-- 
Mark Twain on Cecil Rhodes:                     John Cowan
"I admire him, I freely admit it,               http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
 and when his time comes I shall                http://www.reutershealth.com
 buy a piece of the rope for a keepsake."       jcowan@reutershealth.com