From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue May 06 19:58:32 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 74756 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19DF8Z-0008AP-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 06 May 2003 19:58:31 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DF8C-0008A3-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 19:58:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 May 2003 19:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DF81-00089e-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 19:57:58 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4738567001848 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 22:08:05 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h47385vn001847 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 6 May 2003 22:08:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 22:08:04 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Some ideas/questions (long) Message-ID: <20030507030804.GA1807@allusion.net> References: <20030506003536.GC27938@ccil.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20030506074032.0348f2e0@pop.east.cox.net> <20030507024957.GA1380@panda.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="liOOAslEiF7prFVr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030507024957.GA1380@panda.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 5183 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 --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 10:49:57AM +0800, tk1@despammed.com wrote: > Hello all, > [Robert LeChevalier:] > > over to TLI. Prothero in particular invented the use of the "error" to= ken > > to define elidable terminators which is a key feature that TLI Loglan a= nd > > Lojban both share. Prothero expressly gave us permission in case it pr= oved >=20 > Apologies for hijacking this thread, but upon hearing about this use of t= he > "error" token, I am starting to feel somewhat uncomfortable. Specifically= , I > fear that using such strange hacks will make it harder to explain (and > grasp) intuitively when certain words can be elided, without referring to= a > specific 1970's parsing technology. >=20 > (I am thinking of utterances such as ".i le gerku jersi le mlatu fa'o" > without "cu" before "jersi" -- this can be `intuitively' construed as a > garden-path utterance for "The dog chases the cat", but will be rejected = by > an LALR(1) parser.) This is a feature. That sentence actually means "The doggedly chaser. The cat." What exactly is your complaint? --=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 --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+uHiUDrrilS51AZ8RAuoeAJ9VMDE76+X2G+s0k+GF0hAHNMSKUACgwaVb KkTwkqX55hUM/met2K1tYRQ= =ZAmx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --liOOAslEiF7prFVr-- From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue May 06 19:58:32 2003 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_6_6); 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 74756 invoked from network); 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 7 May 2003 02:58:31 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.12) id 19DF8Z-0008AP-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 06 May 2003 19:58:31 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DF8C-0008A3-00; Tue, 06 May 2003 19:58:08 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 May 2003 19:58:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19DF81-00089e-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 May 2003 19:57:58 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id h4738567001848 for ; Tue, 6 May 2003 22:08:05 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id h47385vn001847 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 6 May 2003 22:08:05 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 22:08:04 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Some ideas/questions (long) Message-ID: <20030507030804.GA1807@allusion.net> References: <20030506003536.GC27938@ccil.org> <5.2.0.9.0.20030506074032.0348f2e0@pop.east.cox.net> <20030507024957.GA1380@panda.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="liOOAslEiF7prFVr" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20030507024957.GA1380@panda.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-archive-position: 5183 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 --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, May 07, 2003 at 10:49:57AM +0800, tk1@despammed.com wrote: > Hello all, > [Robert LeChevalier:] > > over to TLI. Prothero in particular invented the use of the "error" to= ken > > to define elidable terminators which is a key feature that TLI Loglan a= nd > > Lojban both share. Prothero expressly gave us permission in case it pr= oved >=20 > Apologies for hijacking this thread, but upon hearing about this use of t= he > "error" token, I am starting to feel somewhat uncomfortable. Specifically= , I > fear that using such strange hacks will make it harder to explain (and > grasp) intuitively when certain words can be elided, without referring to= a > specific 1970's parsing technology. >=20 > (I am thinking of utterances such as ".i le gerku jersi le mlatu fa'o" > without "cu" before "jersi" -- this can be `intuitively' construed as a > garden-path utterance for "The dog chases the cat", but will be rejected = by > an LALR(1) parser.) This is a feature. That sentence actually means "The doggedly chaser. The cat." What exactly is your complaint? --=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 --liOOAslEiF7prFVr Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE+uHiUDrrilS51AZ8RAuoeAJ9VMDE76+X2G+s0k+GF0hAHNMSKUACgwaVb KkTwkqX55hUM/met2K1tYRQ= =ZAmx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --liOOAslEiF7prFVr--