WikiDiscuss

On Wed, Jan 05, 2005 at 04:49:52PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> Jorge Llamb??????)B???as scripsit:
>
> > I would agree with a rule for ignoring additional sa's if the
> > rule for sa in general was to do nothing when it doesn't find
> > any previous word of the same selmaho of the following word.
> > Then sa sa wouldn't be an exception.
>
> Sounds good to me.

Not to me. Not even a bit.

People should be able to put chat logs and such into a parser
line-by-line and get useful results out. Given:

foo: mi klama
bar: klama ma
foo: lo zdani be la fred .y. sa do klama lo zdani be mi

The result should *not* be:

mi klama

klama ma

lo zdani be la fred .y. do klama lo zdani be mi

Not least because the last line is now *ungrammatical*.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/