[lojban] Re: Annotated PEG grammar

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

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 14:52, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It turns out that sumti-1 is the first member of a series in the
>> grammar to reference a previous member of its series. So sumti-4 is
>> very much the rule, not the exception.

"gek sumti gik sumti-4" is weird because it means "ge da .a de gi da
.a di" will group as "(ge (da .a de) gi da) .a di", which is horrible.

> The only reason that comment
>> was there is because it was a comment I put in my copy of the grammar
>> file while debugging something about the grammar parse tree. Do you
>> think more rules should reference earlier members of the series when
>> possible? That would very much change the semantics of the language,
>> albeit often in gray areas.

What I think is that "ge X gi Y" should be symmetrical in X and Y, it
should always be possibe to rewrite it as "ge Y gi X" without changing
the meaning.

> Now that I look at it, that sumti-1 rule looks fishy. Why is it
> referencing sumti instead of sumti-1? The only thing in sumti is VUhO,
> which looks just wrong.

It means you can use a VUhO relative clause to apply only within a
KE-KEhE grouped sumti.

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.