[lojban] Re: gleki xisri'i

["Chris Capel" <pdf23ds@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Dec 26, 2008 at 08:42, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the correct statement of the elidability rule is something like this:
>
> "An elidable terminator terminates some construct. The terminator can
> be elided if and only if the construct it terminates won't be extended
> in its absence."

This statement of the rule (just a clarification? or is it stronger?)
seems to make it even more clear that a pure CFG will not suffice to
handle elideable terminators. It would require one part of the parse
tree to know what's going on in a completely different (though
textually adjacent) part.

> In the case of "nu le broda KU broda", KU is terminating the construct
> "le broda KU". If we elide it, that construct will be extened to "le
> broda brode [KU]", and so it cannot be elided.

Robin, would a proof that a CFG could not correctly parse this one
specific example suffice for the lesser prize?

Chris Capel
-- 
"What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it
like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?"
-- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet)


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.