From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Feb 03 10:33:18 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 3 Feb 2003 18:33:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 33973 invoked from network); 3 Feb 2003 18:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m9.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 3 Feb 2003 18:33:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 3 Feb 2003 18:33:17 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18flPB-0004is-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:33:17 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 18flOx-0004iX-00; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:33:03 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:33:02 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 18flOs-0004iO-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Feb 2003 10:32:58 -0800 Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 10:32:58 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Grammatical Examples in the CLL (was Re: Re: Ungrammatical examples in CLL) Message-ID: <20030203183258.GA17969@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <5.2.0.9.0.20030202020915.032e2b60@pop.east.cox.net> <20030202153300.GA65000@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030202153300.GA65000@allusion.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 3993 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 09:33:00AM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 02:10:00AM -0500, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > > At 08:36 AM 2/1/03 -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > >On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 03:25:37PM +0000, Martin Bays wrote: > > > > Further to the problems with prenex-connective interaction - > > > > > > > > 16.10.5: > > > > roda zo'u mi prami da .ije naku zo'u do prami da > > > > > > > > and 16.10.6: > > > > su'oda zo'u mi prami da .ije naku zo'u do prami da > > > > > > > > do not parse. Try them on jbofihe. You can use ge...gi instead, > > > > and that seems fine, but (as I mentioned the other day) it looks > > > > like you can't have individually prenexed sentences connected in > > > > afterthought. > > > > > > > > Damned annoying, if you ask me. > > > > > >For the record, jbofi'e has been shown to have errors before. > > > > They parse correctly in the official parser. > > This is because the official parser uses an outdated version of the > BNF. Jbofi'e is right---it is ungrammatical in the newer grammar. > (Which really sucks, btw.) No, jbofi'e is wrong. prenex_30 : terms_80 ZOhU_492 terms_80 : terms_A_81 | terms_80 terms_A_81 ; terms_A_81 : terms_B_82 | terms_A_81 PEhE_494 JOIK_JEK_422 terms_B_82 ; terms_B_82 : term_83 | terms_B_82 CEhE_495 term_83 ; term_83 : sumti_90 | modifier_84 | term_set_85 | NA_KU_810 ; So, a prenex is terms_80 followed by zo'u. terms_80 can reduco to terms_A_81, which can reduce to terms_B_82, which can reduce to term_83, which can reduce to NA_KU_810, which is just "na ku". Unless I'm missing something? -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. .i le pamoi velru'e zo'u crepu le plibu taxfu .i le remoi velru'e zo'u mo .i le cimoi velru'e zo'u ba'e prali .uisai http://www.lojban.org/ *** to sa'a cu'u lei pibyta'u cridrnoma toi