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

[Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>]

At 10:19 PM 4/8/04 -0400, jcowan@reutershealth.com wrote:
> Bob LeChevalier scripsit:
> > I'm afraid of loosening the rules too much if not necessary, for fear we
> > will end up with something like the PA string situation and the UI string
> > situation where everything is grammatical but interpretation is 
> potentially
> > a nightmare.
>
> The trouble is that we're already there.  Since any string of tense
> cmavo can be made grammatical in term_83 context by inserting judicious
> ku's, which the parser will cheerfully do, all the effort put into
> simple_tense_modal_972 and its children was basically pointless.

The rules are still useful for sumti tcita and in theory all tense 
constructs should be semantically equivalent to some sumti tcita construct.

> > The X-ku Y-ku
> > breakup at least gives an interpretation for odd strings, even if it may
> > not be the one people would like.
>
> No, it just pushes the interpretation question off on what it means to have
> multiple tense-ku's in a bridi.  Nothing changes, really.  Does puku ze'aku
> mean the same as puze'a, for instance?  Nobody knows.

puze'a means  "pu da ku ze'a de ku" appropriately places in the sentence 
for some values of da and de.  I thought you had explicitly defined things 
this way in the red book.

> Tentatively, I would favor a loosening of the grammar (this is a real byfy
> change) whereby arbitrary sequences of tense cmavo are permitted in any
> context, but only the existing permitted sequences have standard 
> interpretations.
> This would preserve most of the Red Book, and would only require a notation
> that tense-cmavo sequences other than the known ones do not yet have defined
> meanings.

That's the game we played with PA, as I understand it, and now we have 
debates over the meaning of some of those undefined strings.

lojbab

--
lojbab                                             lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban:                 http://www.lojban.org