From jay.kominek@colorado.edu Tue Nov 13 17:16:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 14 Nov 2001 01:16:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 17703 invoked from network); 14 Nov 2001 01:16:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.167) by m4.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 14 Nov 2001 01:16:46 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ucsub.colorado.edu) (128.138.129.12) by mta1.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 14 Nov 2001 01:16:46 -0000 Received: from ucsub.colorado.edu (kominek@ucsub.colorado.edu [128.138.129.12]) by ucsub.colorado.edu (8.11.6/8.11.2/ITS-5.0/student) with ESMTP id fAE1Gi714045 for ; Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:16:44 -0700 (MST) Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 18:16:44 -0700 (MST) To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: [lojban] Re: ca'a pu (was: Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE From: Jay Kominek X-Yahoo-Profile: jfkominek On Tue, 13 Nov 2001, Invent Yourself wrote: > > > >And why does CAhA have different grammar? It is grammatically correc= t to > > > >say {mi pu ca'a broda} but not {mi ca'a pu broda}. > > > > > > Both are grammatically correct, but the second one parses > > > as {mi ca'aku pu broda}. > > > > In jbofi'e, {mi ca'a pu broda} doesn't parse at all. > > Is there a Good Reason for that? Is it ambiguous? {mi ca'a ku pu broda} works. {mi pu ca'a broda} works. {mi ca'a pu broda} does not work. The parser treats the glob {puca'a} as a single modal. {ca'aku pu} is treated as two modals. {ca'a pu} fails because the grammar only allows PU and CAhA to be glommed into the same modal when they're in the order PU+CAhA Why it does that, I don't know. I don't immediately see why it can't allow CAhA+PU also. Assuming that someone can't figure out why in a day or two, I'll try abusing the grammar to see if it remains LALR(1) with that change. - Jay Kominek Plus =C3=A7a change, plus c'est la m=C3=AAme chose