From mark@xxx.xxx Tue Sep 7 13:52:45 1999 X-Digest-Num: 232 Message-ID: <44114.232.1265.959273825@eGroups.com> Date: 7 Sep 1999 20:52:45 -0000 From: mark@xxx.xxx Subject: Parser Puzzle OK, here's a strange 'un. I was running the Lojban KLI info page through the parser. Found some mistakes. (Also found that the parser treats "kybycy" as a brivla and not a lerfu string, so I changed that to "ky by cy" in the input but not in the actual file). But I found a puzzlement. Here are two sentences. One, technically, is just a bare vocative. I guess since the grammar handles vocatives at the beginnings of paragraphs specially, I can expect odd behavior, but still. These two sentences parse Just Fine separately, but error if there's an {.i} between them. Since the first is just a bare vocative the meaning's the same with or without the {.i}, but it's strange. Hmm, actually, I think I have managed to bring it down to a simple case. It seems to depend on the {ni'o} of all things: ni'o ju'i loi lobypli .i do cinri The above is NOT grammatical, according to the parser. Neither is ni'o ju'i lobypli .i do cinri Both ARE correct if the {ni'o} is not there, or if the {.i} is omitted. Adding {do'u} before the {.i} doesn't help. This is most puzzling. I presume the grammar will bear this out when I check out the EBNF; I further presume this is an oversight, since it doesn't make much semantic sense to allow it without {ni'o} and forbid it with one. What have you folks to say for yourselves? About this, I mean. ~mark