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

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

On Mon, Mar 29, 2004 at 07:09:55AM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> 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 cu roroi xagji
> 4)	roroi xagji fa da poi cribe

I'm sorry, I must be missing something.  In the last two cases, unless
I'm seriously confused, that's just a tense binding to a selbri.
Neither of them require a 'ku' to be inserted to parse, whereas the
example I gave does:

    mi pu ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja

versus

    mi pu ku ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja

Only the latter is accepted by the current parser, but all of your
examples are accepted, and using completely different functionality.  I
don't see how my examples relate to your examples.

-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