<p>Lojban's <a href="http://www.lojban.org/publications/formal-grammars/grammar.300.txt" rel="noreferrer">official formal grammar</a> is written in YACC, which is a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LALR_parser" rel="noreferrer">LALR(1) parser</a> generator. Since this means that the parser only ever "looks ahead" a maximum distance of one token while parsing, garden path sentences are impossible in the traditional sense.</p>

<p>This just means that the parse tree can't be drastically transformed during the sentence—it doesn't mean that the <em>meaning</em> of sentences can't be changed signficantly later on within them. The first example that comes to mind is the song <em>NA KU</em> from Djemynai's <a href="https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao" rel="noreferrer">ZA'O</a>, which contains the chorus "<em>pu ku zvati fa do .ije ca ku zvati fa do... na ku</em>." This glosses roughly as follows:</p>

<pre><code>pu-ku zvati   fa-do
PST   present 2sg.NOM
You were here.

.i-je ca-ku zvati   fa-do   na-ku
and   PRES  present 2sg.NOM NEG
Now you are not here.
</code></pre>

<p>Note that the use of <em>ku</em> allows the negation particle to be moved to the very end of the sentence. This does not affect the parse, so it's not a traditional garden path sentence, but it still allows the creation of a surprising effect, which is similar in some senses.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-03-18T00:34:27.083Z
See also [joiku](https://mw.lojban.org/papri/joiku), a phrase where you need more lookahead in the grammar to parse. This is forbidden under the official grammar, but widely used parsers don't require ku due to using a PEG parser instead.
Wilfred Hughes
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T16:11:20.740Z
Is negation always at the end, or only when *-ku* is suffixed to *na*?
curiousdannii
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T17:48:23.503Z
@curiousdannii The *ku* particle allows moving *na* to a different position in the sentence, yes. A more "typical" way of writing it would be *do ca na zvati*.
Doorknob
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-02-08T15:30:42.320Z
2018-02-08T15:30:42.320Z
Doorknob
<p>A <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence" rel="noreferrer">garden path sentence</a> is a sentence whose beginning suggests one parsing which is invalidated as the whole sentence is read and then re-parsed. Some examples in English (from <a href="http://www.fun-with-words.com/ambiguous_garden_path.html" rel="noreferrer">fun-with-words.com</a>):</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Fat people eat accumulates.</p>
<p>When Fred eats food gets thrown.</p>
<p>The girl told the story cried.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>It is claimed that Lojban is a syntactically unambiguous language. Does that mean that garden path sentences cannot be constructed in Lojban?</p>

<lojban><ambiguity>
Can you construct garden path sentences in Lojban?
# Can you construct garden path sentences in Lojban?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-02-08)

A [garden path sentence](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garden_path_sentence) is a sentence whose beginning suggests one parsing which is invalidated as the whole sentence is read and then re-parsed. Some examples in English (from [fun-with-words.com](http://www.fun-with-words.com/ambiguous_garden_path.html)):

> Fat people eat accumulates.
>
> When Fred eats food gets thrown.
>
> The girl told the story cried.

It is claimed that Lojban is a syntactically unambiguous language. Does that mean that garden path sentences cannot be constructed in Lojban?

**Tags:** lojban, ambiguity


---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2018-02-08. Score: 18

Lojban's [official formal grammar](http://www.lojban.org/publications/formal-grammars/grammar.300.txt) is written in YACC, which is a [LALR(1) parser](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LALR_parser) generator. Since this means that the parser only ever "looks ahead" a maximum distance of one token while parsing, garden path sentences are impossible in the traditional sense.

This just means that the parse tree can't be drastically transformed during the sentence—it doesn't mean that the *meaning* of sentences can't be changed signficantly later on within them. The first example that comes to mind is the song *NA KU* from Djemynai's [ZA'O](https://djemynai.bandcamp.com/album/zao), which contains the chorus "*pu ku zvati fa do .ije ca ku zvati fa do... na ku*." This glosses roughly as follows:

```
pu-ku zvati   fa-do
PST   present 2sg.NOM
You were here.

.i-je ca-ku zvati   fa-do   na-ku
and   PRES  present 2sg.NOM NEG
Now you are not here.

```

Note that the use of *ku* allows the negation particle to be moved to the very end of the sentence. This does not affect the parse, so it's not a traditional garden path sentence, but it still allows the creation of a surprising effect, which is similar in some senses.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Is negation always at the end, or only when *-ku* is suffixed to *na*?  
> **username_1**: @username_0 The *ku* particle allows moving *na* to a different position in the sentence, yes. A more "typical" way of writing it would be *do ca na zvati*.  
> **username_2**: See also [joiku](https://mw.lojban.org/papri/joiku), a phrase where you need more lookahead in the grammar to parse. This is forbidden under the official grammar, but widely used parsers don't require ku due to using a PEG parser instead.  

---

