[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: My parser, SI, SA, and ZOI



At 01:40 PM 5/7/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
On Fri, May 07, 2004 at 12:31:28PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > > What does {da zo si si} do?
> >
> > It *should* result in just 'da', because zo is defined as turning
> > itself and the next argument into a single word.  zoi is *not* so
> > defined.
>
> Is there a justification for that difference?

Huh.

I'm sorry, I thought that that difference was explicitely stated
somewhere, but I can't find it.  The Red Book doesn't seem to say
whether or not "zo da" is treated as a single word at all.

So unless I'm missing something, all we have to go on is grammar.300,
which says:

a. If the Lojban word "zoi" (selma'o ZOI) is identified, take the
following Lojban word (which should be end delimited with a pause for
separation from the following non-Lojban text) as an opening delimiter.
Treat all text following that delimiter, until that delimiter recurs
*after a pause*, as grammatically a single token (labelled
'anything_699' in this grammar).  There is no need for processing within
this text except as necessary to find the closing delimiter.

b. If the Lojban word "zo" (selma'o ZO) is identified, treat the
following Lojban word as a token labelled 'any_word_698', instead of
lexing it by its normal grammatical function.

So "zoi da de da" is turned into four tokens, "zoi da anything_699 da"
and "zo da" is turned into the single token "any_word_698".

It is this behaviour that I am trying to emulate, without being a slave
to YACC restrictions (which, for example, make it so that "zoi da weeble
da si si si si" works, but no lesser number of "si" after the zoi have
any effect.

Lojban grammar was DESIGNED to be a slave to YACC restrictions, that being a working definition of LALR1 for purposes of language design. That it isn't a correct definition is irrelevant.

In answer to the question in this thread, I believe that the text comment in the body of the grammar after the rule defining LohU 436 addresses the intent for interactions between si and zo and zoi.

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