From lojban-out@lojban.org Fri Feb 07 11:04:14 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_4); 7 Feb 2003 19:04:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 14738 invoked from network); 7 Feb 2003 19:04:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 Feb 2003 19:04:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 Feb 2003 19:04:10 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18hDnG-00073u-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:04:10 -0800 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 18hDn4-00073Y-00; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:03:58 -0800 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:03:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 18hDmx-00073N-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2003 11:03:51 -0800 Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2003 11:03:51 -0800 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Grammatical Examples in the CLL (was Re: Re: Ungrammatical examples in CLL) Message-ID: <20030207190351.GF16074@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> <20030203183258.GA17969@digitalkingdom.org> <20030207021156.GA85399@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030207021156.GA85399@allusion.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.3i X-archive-position: 4049 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 Thu, Feb 06, 2003 at 08:11:56PM -0600, Jordan DeLong wrote: > On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 10:32:58AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > 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. [snip] > > Unless I'm missing something? > > You're looking at the wrong part of the grammar. > > statement; > : statement-1 > | prenex statement > > statement-1; > : statement-2 [I joik-jek [statement-2]] ... > > statement-2; > : statement-3 [I [jek | joik] [stag] BO # [statement-2]] > > statement-3; > : sentence > | [tag] TUhE # text-1 /TUhU#/ > > .... > > sentence; > : [terms [CU #]] bridi-tail > > So you can't put a prenex in there after a .ifoo connective. > > Yes this sucks. > > The older grammar (which the official parser uses) supports this. I > have no idea why it was removed. What did the older rules look like? > All that needs to be done to fix it is to make the part after the > connective of the statement1 and statement2 things use a "statement" > rule instead of a "statement2" rule, and to decide what kind of scope > the outer prenex has. That last part might take some work. -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