[lojban] Re: Opinions, please: SA by structure

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

All usages in this thread have been verified in my current version,
unless I specifically state otherwise.

On Sat, Jan 22, 2005 at 07:12:08AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > 3) What happens if you try to back out a construct that hasn't
> > actually occurred?  {.i casnu sa mi}, for instance.
> 
> That would erase everything, I would say. 

No solution to this is currently implemented.  Opinions welcome.

> > 6) In general, using a structural approach instead of a strictly
> > word-form approach worries me in the presence of grammatical
> > errors, and correcting errors is what {sa} and friends are all
> > about. 

{sa} can still be used to correct grammatical errors.  {mi klama co
co co sa do klama} becomes {do klama}.  Given "START STUFF SA
STRUCT", where START is a valid starter word for STRUCT, only the
things before START (exclusive) and after STRUCT (inclusive) must be
grammatical.

> > Specifically, I wonder whether you could confuse the parser
> > enough that you couldn't get it to replace what you want.  {mi
> > nelci le .djan. sa la .djan.}  But *{le .djan.} isn't
> > grammatical, so will we be able to Do the Right Thing? 
> 
> In principle yes, 

Also in practice:

text
   sentence
   |- CMAVO
   |     KOhA: mi
   |- bridiTail3
      |- BRIVLA
      |     gismu: nelci
      |- sumti6
         |- CMAVO
         |     LA: la
         |- CMENE
               cmene: djan

-Robin

-- 
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/