Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: ca'a pu (was: Why is there so much irregularity in cmavo/gismu?)

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 18:41:39 -0500

At 10:55 PM 11/16/01 +0000, Richard Curnow wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 07:33:06AM -0700, Jay Kominek wrote:
>Obviously {mi pu ca'a broda} does work. So the key difference is that
>'pu' cannot follow 'ca'a' within a single time construction.
>
>I've investigated why jbofi'e doesn't reduce ca'a to a standalone term
>(inferring 'ku') when 'pu' is the lookahead token. Essentially, it's
>because it thinks it's starting to see something like
>
> mi ca'a pu gi le nanmu gi le ninmu cu broda
>
>(whatever that might mean), i.e. it's expecting to see 'gi' after pu to
>make everything work out OK. This expression parses OK on the official
>v2.33 parser. (I don't actually have the official v3 parser running yet
>- I've never got round to sorting the build out.)
>
>I need to away and think quite hard about this problem. The full extent
>of the bug is not yet clear to me - I presume I'm missing one of the
>pre-parser stages that the official parser has.

ca'a pu should never be acceptable even before a gi. It has to have the ku 
(or have it inferred by YACCs error processing.

simple tag + GI is a lexer_G construction, and the simple tag cannot 
include the ca'a. It should know before it leaves preparsing whether the 
PU is or is not part of a lexer_G.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org