From lojban-out@lojban.org Mon Apr 28 18:44:26 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 29 Apr 2003 01:44:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 31265 invoked from network); 29 Apr 2003 01:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m10.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 29 Apr 2003 01:01:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 29 Apr 2003 01:01:50 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19AJVG-0006Sy-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:01:50 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AJVD-0006Sf-00; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:01:47 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:01:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19AJV4-0006SW-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 18:01:38 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3) with ESMTP id h3T1DQsr001383 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:13:26 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.6p2/8.12.3/Submit) id h3T1DQQs001378 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:13:26 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 20:13:26 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: BPFK phpbb Message-ID: <20030429011326.GB1205@allusion.net> References: <20030428190602.GZ22216@digitalkingdom.org> <20030428194858.18292.qmail@web20506.mail.yahoo.com> <20030428203758.GA99775@allusion.net> <20030428211719.GA1100@skunk.reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030428211719.GA1100@skunk.reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-archive-position: 4995 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 --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Mon, Apr 28, 2003 at 05:21:30PM -0400, John Cowan wrote: > Jordan DeLong scripsit: > > Anyway, I dunno why the text rule allows a nai at the start,=20 >=20 > It's probably overkill. What we thought was useful was to have "nai" > by itself, for dialogues like this: >=20 > A: .ui. > B: nai For this why didn't you put it in the fragment rule? > > Other than the problem with making too many sentences legal, I would > > complain that it complicates the parse tree of things like {mi > > na.enai do klama}. The first "na" is handled at the same level as > > the .e and as part of the structure there. But the second "nai" > > (if in UI) is handled at a lower level of the parser (where it > > allows UIs after any word). >=20 > The official parser trawls forward (backtracking on failure) and slurps > up things like "na.enai". ??? Judging by your response, you probably misunderstood me. But I don't understand your point, so I can't say for sure... --=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 --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+rdG1DrrilS51AZ8RAgUrAKDS7XYTP6u8cC7N1RXPNUL1Yk21dACeMfSp ob0UJ3a7O1Ht12bdv6uO044= =hmUF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --LpQ9ahxlCli8rRTG--