Subject: [lojban] Re: cmegadri valfendi preti

From: Nora LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Dec 2002 20:11:28 -0500

At 10:34 AM 12/5/02 +0100, Lionel wrote:

>Pierre Abbat:
> > Another question: why is the cmegadri broken off from what precedes it,
> > instead of just breaking between the cmene and the cmegadri and leaving
> > the cmegadri to be found later? What about {MUstelaVIson}
> > and {muSTElaVIson}? How
> > should they be analyzed?
>
>Because when you make that break you *must* flag the cmegadri part as a
>cmegadri (otherwise a pause before the cmene would have been necessary),
>whereas a further parsing may change what you thought was a cmegadri
>to, say, a brivla ending... which would then invalidate your previously
>parsed cmene! (I hope I am clear enough :-)
>So: {MUstelaVIson} = {MUste la Vison} and {muSTElaVIson} is
>rejected because a brivla cannot end with a stressed syllable.
>Note that, while I consider that result correct, I find the error label
>quite unlogical: a forward parsing would give an error after parsing
>{muSTEla}, saying that a pause is needed before cmene {Vision},
> which seems much more palatable: better error messages are another
>advantage IMO of a change of the current backward algorithm
>for a forward one.
>
>-- Lionel

I used a backward algorithm because a forward algorithm is susceptible to 
garden-pathing. For example,
'miKLAmaleZARcifuleKARcegi'eBEVrileDAKlis'
is a name, but you don't know it until the final letter.

-- 
mi'e noras [email-masked]
Nora LeChevalier