WikiDiscuss

On Wed, 10 Nov 2004, Jorge Llambas wrote:

> There are other issues I have with FAhO, though.
>
> 1) If we really need such a metagrammatical word for
> end-of-parsable-input, how come a corresponding word for
> beginning-of-parsable-input is not needed?

I think {su} serves that purpose. Anything at all is allowed before it, and
ignored as far as the parser is concerned. Or is that not the case?

> 2) At least in Robin's parser implementation, FAhO has a true
> magic word grammatical function besides its end-of-parsable-input
> metagrammatical function. If I understand correctly, in Robin's
> parser FAhO swallows also any preceding word that makes the
> text ungrammatical. So for example: {mi klama le zarci le fa'o}
> will be parsed as {mi klama le zarci /ku/ /vau/ fa'o}. So FAhO
> is also in the SI, SA, SU group in that it erases zero or more
> preceding words.
>
> 3) I think it would be better if FAhO was just an "end of
> grammatical text" (elidable) terminator, i.e.:
> text = (rest of grammar) /FAhO/
> This way it would not be a magic word, it could be erased
> with SI/SA/SU, and used as "any-word" by BU and ZEI.
> So you could easily fix a {fa'o si fo'a} mistake.
>
> Recognizing end-of-parsable-input is a metagrammatical
> function, akin to recognizing beginning-of-parsable-input.
> Doing it with a word that can also be used within the
> grammar (as in {zo fa'o}) is weird.
>
> mu'o mi'e xorxes
>
>
>
>
> __
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
> www.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>

--
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

"Yet creeds mean very little," Coth answered the dark god, still speaking
almost gently. "The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all
possible worlds; and the pessimist fears this is true."

--James Cabell, "The Silver Stallion."