[lojban] Re: Official parser and "lo ni'a zu crino"

[Jorge "Llambías" <jjllambias2000@yahoo.com.ar>]

--- jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:
> 
> I will not support, however, any structural changes that *could* be made
> as a result of going to infinite-lookahead grammar: no A/JA merger, e.g.
> For one thing, human beings don't support infinite lookahead.  But I
> am okay with accepting things like "le broda joi le brodi", since that
> is not truly an ambiguity but just the result of smarter resolution of
> elidable terminators than Yacc allows.

Isn't that self-contradictory? Why is infinite-lookahead acceptable
for JOI but not for JE? I don't think human capability can be much of
an issue here. It's just that the elimination of A would go too much 
against tradition. A good compromise might be to let A alone but extend 
JA to have tha grammar of JOI, so that {le broda je le brode} would be 
acceptable along with {le broda e le brode}. If humans can handle
{joi}, then they can handle {je} with the same grammar.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business $15K Web Design Giveaway 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/design_giveaway/