[lojban] Re: experimental cmavo in lojgloss.

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 9:30 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now, SA has a lot more complicated grammar, so lo'ai would
> be easier to implement even using the same technique. (And contrary to
> Jorge, I'm not too sure it would introduce any weird interactions with
> the SA machinery.)

I don't think interactions with SA are the problem. I think LOhAI (if
the construction is to be more than just a free modifier) is much more
complicated than SA, with or without interactions. I agree their
interaction is mostly irrelevant.

What SA does is: before each word, look ahead to see whether the word
and everything that follows up to SA will end up being deleted by SA.
If not, proceed. If yes, ignore everythig up to the replacement word
and proceed from there.

LOhAI can't do just that. What it has to do is: before each word, look
ahead to see whether the word and some of what follows will be
deleted. If not, proceed. If yes, ignore everything that matches the
part between LOhAI and SAhAI, continue with what comes after SAhAI, go
back to the end of the previous match and proceeed from there. The
only way I can see that working with a PEG is having a different rule
for each potential replacement string. But the number of potential
replacements is infinite, so I don't see how that could work. (Or I
may be missing something.)

What Daniel proposes is much simpler, but I'm still not sure I see the
point of it. It won't do anything useful for humans, nor for a
computer parser.

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.