From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Dec 03 22:55:36 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 4 Dec 2002 06:55:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 96917 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2002 06:55:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 4 Dec 2002 06:55:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 4 Dec 2002 06:55:35 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18JTRX-0005wF-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:55:35 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JTRS-0005vx-00; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:55:30 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:55:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18JTRN-0005vo-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 03 Dec 2002 22:55:25 -0800 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id gB471OG9060364 for ; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:01:24 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id gB471Mfg060358 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:01:22 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 01:01:22 -0600 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy) Message-ID: <20021204070122.GA60012@allusion.net> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 2998 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:42:28PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > la lojbab cusku di'e > >I think that NAI treated as a UI would cause more (semantics) problems t= han > >you can imagine (and we did consider it, albeit VERY briefly). You are = the > >one who wants better semantics definition. Grammatically it would be a > >major change because NAI is in so many rules. >=20 > It is precisely because it is in so many rules, that it is difficult > to learn. For each rule, you have to learn whether or not it allows > NAI. Moving NAI to UI may be a major change but it would be one that > simplifies the grammar, and which is also fully backward compatible, > so the best kind of change. I think the first part is an overexaggeration of how difficult it is to learn where NAI is allowed. Yes, it simplifies the grammar (in terms of reducing the size and number of rules), but is not a good idea because it's sloppy ("We can't exactly decide when we want to allow -nai, so lets allow it anywhere and decide what it means later")---giving up a piece of rigorousness from the grammar. > >pa re nai ci? > >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser) >=20 > That could be used in this context, for example: >=20 > A: pa re xu ci > B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci I dunno what ja'ai is and don't feel like looking it up. This seems highly contrived though. Anyway, there's certainly tons of weird things which would need to be explained (ku nai, pi'e nai, la/le/etc nai, .inai, mi nai, la'e nai di'u, jai nai, etc etc). > >It would mean that the logical connectives are handled by hodgepodge: je > >and naje would be lexer tokens, but najenai would grammatically be naje > >with an absorbed nai as part of the je hence implying "na (je nai)" whi= ch > >is not correct. >=20 > Why is that not correct? The parser can't tell {je} appart from {ja}, This is just false. The parser can and does know the difference between {je} and {ja}---that's how it prints either "and" or "or" as the gloss. > why is it such a big deal if it can't tell them appart from {jenai} > either? {naje} does not imply {na(je)}, so {najenai} will not imply > {na(jenai)} either. najenai with nai in UI *does* require na(jenai), because the free modifier applies to the word before the word gets reduced into whatever other rule. The parser certainly *can* hack around this and know whether the "je" has a nai attached to it, but it's a lot less clean, and makes the parse tree not really reflect the grammatical structure. (as lojbab said, the structure of it is just "na je" and not "na je nai"). [...] --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE97ahCDrrilS51AZ8RAtVYAJ44kgaBSKLkxU61nTvhbuCz9aymBQCgjZAV GaUblX+tkY7LCvPG8M4nAok= =TkZ9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi--