On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Jorge Llambías
<jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> It doesn't have to actually make the replacements at the parser level. Just
> having a grammar for it so that it can parse would be totally fine. It can
> be treated as an informal indicator that has to be interpreted at a higher
> level.
An internal grammar for the construction, and then making the
construction a free indicator, is doable.
Yeah, that would be useful.
But in that case it won't be
of help for fixing something that is grammatically broken, like
SI/SA/SU are meant to do. For example {mi kjama le zarji lo'ai kjama
sa'ai klama le'ai} will parse as "{mi} followed by uninterpretable
gibberish", so it will never get to a higher level for interpretation.
It will when you are talking to a human.