Re[2]: Lojban BNF grammar inconsistency (fwd)

[Veijo Vilva <veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 96 11:43:00 PST
From: Clark Nelson <Clark_Nelson@ccm.jf.intel.com>
To: veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi
Subject: Re[2]: Lojban BNF grammar inconsistency

>   The latest unpublished version of the YACC grammar is 2.41 . 
>   I don't know whether there are any plans of updating the BNF
>   grammar - personally I'd hope so - but any help is welcome, of 
>   course. I think, however, that it is a waste of time to do 
>   anything much before the YACC grammar is baselined and made 
>   public. I could correct the most glaring discrepancies between 
>   the grammar versions on the Web server, though, if you send me 
>   your notes.

Is that version 2.41 six revisions past the grammar.235 on powered?

There seems to be a sort of hierarchy of net repositories.  powered
seems to be "officially current."  xiron seems to lag it by a bit -- I
assume that's because of the effort involved in HTML translation.
access.digex seems to be for stuff that's "preliminary, but ready for
general review."  But there's no grammar stuff on access.digex.

I may sound like I'm trying to butt in, but the cross-analysis (by hand)
of the YACC and BNF was rather a time-consuming process.  It would be
much easier, if the BNF is considered worthwhile, to *keep* it up to
date, rather than having to *catch* it up to date.  I would be willing
to work on the BNF, but significant lag times from YACC changes would
make it a lot harder.  Is there any way I could get more current YACC
than seems to be available on the servers I already know about?  Also,
what are the prospects for correcting the "original" BNF, as opposed to
just what's on xiron?

I have attached the results of my analysis of what's on xiron, expressed
as proposed changes to the BNF.  Each change is marked with the nature of
the reason for change.  A couple of questions arose about whether the
YACC grammar is really an accurate description of the language; see
text:0 and paragraph_2:12.

co'o mi'e klark.

----------------------------------------
        text:0
DISCREPANCY: YACC allows any number of initial NAI.  I frankly don't know
whether this is intentional, since the refgrammar doesn't suggest any
semantics for "nai nai", and that string is valid only at the beginning
of an utterance.  If it is intentional, then the simplest way to reflect
it in BNF would be to insert "..." after "NAI".  That would not give the
same parse tree as the YACC, but unless the semantics are resolved, I
don't want to worry about that.  (Is this a YACC issue?)
COMMENT: The parentheses around "CMENE ...  #" are redundant.  Actually,
so are the parentheses around "indicators & free ...", given the
explanation of precedence before the grammar proper.  However, this
seems to be the only place where that precedence rule applies, so it
might be just as well to leave in those parens.
HTML COMMENT: There should probably not be a break in this rule.
TYPO: "joik-jek" should be "joik_jek".

        text_1:2
DISCREPANCY: According to YACC, a paragraph mark is "(NIhO #)...", not
"NIhO... #".  Also, "paragraphs" should be optional.

        paragraphs:4
DISCREPANCY: Again, "NIhO... #" should be "(NIhO #)...".

        paragraph:10
TYPO: There is a missing "]" after "paragraph_1".

        paragraph_1:11
DISCREPANCY: "paragraph_1" should be optional.

        paragraph_2:12
MAJOR DISCREPANCY: As far as I can tell, the grammar should be:
        utterance
        | TUhE # text_1 /TUhU #/
        | (prenex | tag) TUhE paragraphs /TUhU #/
This assumes that YACC should be taken as gospel, and must be rendered
exactly.  But it seems excessively complex that the grammar of the text
scope should depend on whether it has a prefix. (YACC issue?)

        utterance:20
DISCREPANCY: "#" should follow "NA".

        bridi_tail:50
DISCREPANCY: It would seem that there should be no "..." at the end of
this rule.

        sumti:90
DISCREPANCY: Again, it would seem that there should be no "..." at the
end of the rule.

        sumti_5:96
TYPO: There is a "|" missing before "ZOI".

        selbri_1:131
DISCREPANCY: Again, "NA" should be followed by "#".

        selbri_4:134
MAJOR DISCREPANCY: I think it should be:
        selbri_5 [joik_jek selbri_5 | joik [stag] KE # selbri_3 /KEhE #/]...

        selbri_5:135
DISCREPANCY: It would appear that "[stag]" is missing before "BO".

        tanru_unit_2:152
HTML COMMENT: There should probably not be a break in the middle of
"(number | lerfu_string) MOI #".

        mex_2:312
HTML COMMENT: For consistency, there should be a break after "operand".

        operator:370
MAJOR DISCREPANCY: The same comment as for selbri_4.  It should be:
        operator_1 [joik_jek operator_1 | joik [stag] KE # operator /KEhE #/]...

        operator_2:372
MINOR DISCREPANCY: Although this may not result in an actual language
difference, YACC has no "#" after "mex_operator".

        mex_operator:374
TYPO: There should be a break and "|" before "MAhO".
MINOR DISCREPANCY: "VUhU" should be followed by "#".  Again, this change
plus that to operator_2 may add up to no language change, but it better
matches the YACC.

        operand:381
DISCREPANCY: For the third time, there should apparently be no "..." at
the end of this rule.

        gek:807
TYPO: There is a garbage ")" in the name of the rule.
MINOR DISCREPANCY: "gik" should not be followed by "#", since gik
already terminates with #.

        interval_modifier:1050
DISCREPANCY: "ZAhO" should be followed by "[NAI]".
COMMENT: The brackets around "(ZAhO [NAI] [interval_property])..." are
redundant.

        free:32
HTML COMMENT: There should be a break before "| (number | lerfu_string)
MAI".
COMMENT: It would be more consistent with other parts of the grammar to
collapse:
        | XI number /BOI/
        | XI lerfu_string /BOI/
into:
        | XI (number | lerfu_string) /BOI/