[lojban] elidable terminators and ambiguity

[vpbroman@gmail.com]

coi ro do

I am trying to understand the rules for eliding terminators.
The CLL comments on several special cases for when terminators may or may not be elided,
but the only general principle I can find is CLL 21.2 EBNF Grammar of Lojban, point 10:

// encloses an elidable terminator, which may be omitted (without change of meaning) if no grammatical ambiguity results.

Still, grammatical ambiguity doesn't seem to me to be the deciding factor. Consider these two examples.

i mi noi le mlatu ku sisku keha vau kuho cu sipna vau
I, whom the cat is seeking, am sleeping.

The "ku" should be elidable, because when it is omitted, there is only one possible place to insert it -- no grammatical ambiguity.
But, a parser says it cannot be elided, and it does look somehow strange with the "ku" omitted.

i le mlatu poi xekri vau kuho cu sipna vau
The black cat sleeps.

The "le mlatu" needs a "ku" that can go in one of two places, before or after the relative clause.
These choices are semantically equivalent, but grammatically (syntactically) different.
You can look at the parse trees and see they are different.
Still, the parser says that eliding this "ku" is OK.

Why? Why kind of ambiguity is CLL talking about here?

mihe la bremenli nohu Vincent Broman

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.