From a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Mon Dec 02 18:31:12 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 3 Dec 2002 02:31:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 52849 invoked from network); 3 Dec 2002 02:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Dec 2002 02:31:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Dec 2002 02:31:11 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18J2q7-0004Kv-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:31:11 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J2q3-0004Kb-00; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:31:07 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:31:06 -0800 (PST) Received: from lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net ([212.78.202.113]) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18J2pv-0004KR-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 18:30:59 -0800 Received: from oemcomputer (host81-7-55-180.surfport24.v21.co.uk [81.7.55.180]) by lmsmtp03.st1.spray.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7041A3CF0E for ; Tue, 3 Dec 2002 03:30:26 +0100 (MET) To: Subject: [lojban] Re: Why we should cancel the vote or all vote NO (was RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 02:32:35 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: <20021203020631.GB43563@allusion.net> X-archive-position: 2935 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list From: "And Rosta" Reply-To: a.rosta@lycos.co.uk X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=122260811 X-Yahoo-Profile: andjamin Jordan: > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 07:02:33PM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > Jordan: > > > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 11:04:47AM -0000, And Rosta wrote: > > > > Avoiding making mex harder to use is not a good reason for not > making the > > > > rest of the language easier to use. I am proposing (and I think > Jordan is > > > > too) that mex and other stuff that has never seen substantial usage be > > > > made more longwinded so that future generations of fluent lojbanists can > > > > decide where shortwindedness can most efficaciously be applied > > > > > > I don't support touching any of mex (unless lau/tei is considered > > > mex). I support And's *idea* here, but not the exact method by > > > which he wants to implement it. I think it is sufficent to add new > > > assignments for one or two 0-usage monosyllabic cmavo without > > > revoking their own assignemnts, and to refrain from using monosyllabic > > > xVV space > > > > How does the new-assignments-without-revoking-old work? > > We assign lau'oi to selma'o LAU, with the exact meaning of lau > We assign tei'oi to selma'o TEI, with the exact meaning of tei > > A statement is made that "lau'oi" and "tei'oi" should be used in > stead of "lau" and "tei", because lau and tei may be reclaimed in > the distant future for their monosyllabicness > > However, since no one but me supports this more moderate approach > to this, and the whole point would be to try to make both you and > everyone else happy about future Zipf possibilites, I'm pretty much > going to have to abandon it and go with everyone else in the view > that we should not worry about Zipf at all There might be a fair bit of support. I know xorxes and Adam have had the knives out for lau. Only Lojbab is positively fond of lau, afaik. The rest of the opposition is just general antitinkering. > > > [...] > > > > > >and instead > > > > > >simply say that the mini-dictionary fixes the meaning of the cmavo it > > > > > >lists. A proper syntactic parser should not have the mahoste built > > > > > >in to it, but should instead take input from a community-maintained > > > > > >mahoste that can be updated with cmavo not listed in the > mini-dictionary > > > > > > > > > > Then write one > > > > > > > > I have (collaboratively) written one for cmavo that are not in the > > > > official mahoste. It is on the wiki. It is easily adaptable (with > > > > about 1 minute's work) by anyone writing a parser to take input from > > > > a mahoste > > > > > > Erm. Lojbab was suggesting you write that parser. ;P > > > > Was he? I don't have the skills to write a parser, and I'm surprised > > Lojbab thought I did > > It was sarcasm > > Anyway, you certainly could learn what you needed to know to write > a parser (or rather to hook up to a yacc-generated parser---would > be an interesting project to rewrite the grammar for LL(1) parsing > though) if you felt like it > > I find some interest in having a parser support querying the user > (or perhaps a file in their home directory) for selma'o of bad cmavo > (and this could probably be hacked onto the jbofi'e lexer without > too much trouble) > > As Nick said, If you want something done, you probably have to do > it yourself. If not, then you really shouldn't complain about what > the current parsers support I understand now. In saying that the parser should take input from the mahoste I did not mean "somebody should go and do the work of modifying the existing parser". I meant "conceptually, the right way for a parser to work is for it to take input from a mahoste". That wasn't a complaint. --And.