Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 13:45:27 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+gSSGpnQUG=P08yPspQqPRmbZrxH6jxvAFiabjdqfhCeg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [bpfk] Proposal: sumti must always be tagged with "tag" even if it's elidible.
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb708c6446ab605130c00b3
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

--047d7bb708c6446ab605130c00b3
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Here is what the experimental grammar had (the official grammar is very
similar):

abs_term_1 = expr:(abs_tag_term / sumti / termset) {return
_node("abs_term_1", expr);}

abs_tag_term = expr:((!gek tag free* !selbri !gek_sentence (sumti / joik_ek
sumti_3 / KU_elidible free*) / !gek (sumti free*) CO_clause tag free* /
NA_clause free* KU_clause free* / !selbri !gek_sentence !ek !joik_jek
!gihek NA_clause free* KU_elidible free* / SOI_clause free* subsentence
SEhU_elidible free*) (joik_jek abs_tag_term)*) {return
_node("abs_tag_term", expr);}


Clearly, you can see that "sumti" occurs two times and what is unfortunate
is that it appears on another level of the tree if a bare non-tagged sumti
is used (the first, "abs_term_1  = " line above). More precisely, when FA
is not used sumti is the direct child of abs_term_1 node whereas with FA it
becomes a direct child of abs_tag_term which is a direct child
of abs_term_1.

So {i fa mi prami} and {i mi prami} produce syntactic trees with a
different hierarchy!

I think that no matter whether sumti is tagged with FA or not it should
appear on the same level.
Existing tricks with PEG make the notion of sumti obscure.
Every sumti should take a certain position.
Not only we need a unambiguous grammar, we need a cleancut hierarchy.

So this is what I propose:

abs_term_1 = expr:(abs_tag_term / termset) {return _node("abs_term_1",
expr);}

abs_tag_term = expr:((!gek tag free* !selbri !gek_sentence (sumti / joik_ek
sumti_3 / KU_elidible free*) / !gek (tag / FA_elidible) free* !selbri
!gek_sentence (sumti)  / !gek (sumti free*) CO_clause tag free* / NA_clause
free* KU_clause free* / !selbri !gek_sentence !ek !joik_jek !gihek
NA_clause free* KU_elidible free* / SOI_clause free* subsentence

FA_elidible = expr:(FA_clause?) {return (expr == "") ? ["FA"] : _node("FA",
expr);}


As you can see, "sumti" disappeared. I added "FA_elidible" which can fire
only if a sumti is present (but not KU_elidible otherwise the grammar will
crash).

Probably, " joik_ek sumti_3 " should also be copied to this FA_elidible
part, right? I'm not an expert in all these things.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--047d7bb708c6446ab605130c00b3
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div><div>Here is what the experimental grammar had (the o=
fficial grammar is very similar):</div><div><br></div><div>abs_term_1 =3D e=
xpr:(abs_tag_term / sumti / termset) {return _node(&quot;abs_term_1&quot;, =
expr);}</div><div><br></div><div>abs_tag_term =3D expr:((!gek tag free* !se=
lbri !gek_sentence (sumti / joik_ek sumti_3 / KU_elidible free*) / !gek (su=
mti free*) CO_clause tag free* / NA_clause free* KU_clause free* / !selbri =
!gek_sentence !ek !joik_jek !gihek NA_clause free* KU_elidible free* / SOI_=
clause free* subsentence SEhU_elidible free*) (joik_jek abs_tag_term)*) {re=
turn _node(&quot;abs_tag_term&quot;, expr);}<br></div></div><div><br><br></=
div><div>Clearly, you can see that &quot;sumti&quot; occurs two times and w=
hat is unfortunate is that it appears on another level of the tree if a bar=
e non-tagged sumti is used (the first, &quot;abs_term_1 =C2=A0=3D &quot; li=
ne above). More precisely, when FA is not used sumti is the direct child of=
=C2=A0abs_term_1 node whereas with FA it becomes a direct child of=C2=A0abs=
_tag_term which is a direct child of=C2=A0abs_term_1.</div><div><br></div><=
div>So {i fa mi prami} and {i mi prami} produce syntactic trees with a diff=
erent hierarchy!</div><div><br></div><div>I think that no matter whether su=
mti is tagged with FA or not it should appear on the same level.<br></div><=
div>Existing tricks with PEG make the notion of sumti obscure.</div><div>Ev=
ery sumti should take a certain position.</div><div>Not only we need a unam=
biguous grammar, we need a cleancut hierarchy.</div><div><br></div><div>So =
this is what I propose:</div><div><br></div><div>abs_term_1 =3D expr:(abs_t=
ag_term / termset) {return _node(&quot;abs_term_1&quot;, expr);}<br></div><=
div><br></div><div>abs_tag_term =3D expr:((!gek tag free* !selbri !gek_sent=
ence (sumti / joik_ek sumti_3 / KU_elidible free*) / !gek (tag / FA_elidibl=
e) free* !selbri !gek_sentence (sumti) =C2=A0/ !gek (sumti free*) CO_clause=
 tag free* / NA_clause free* KU_clause free* / !selbri !gek_sentence !ek !j=
oik_jek !gihek NA_clause free* KU_elidible free* / SOI_clause free* subsent=
ence=C2=A0<br></div><div><br></div><div>FA_elidible =3D expr:(FA_clause?) {=
return (expr =3D=3D &quot;&quot;) ? [&quot;FA&quot;] : _node(&quot;FA&quot;=
, expr);}<br><br></div><div><br></div><div>As you can see, &quot;sumti&quot=
; disappeared. I added &quot;FA_elidible&quot; which can fire only if a sum=
ti is present (but not KU_elidible otherwise the grammar will crash).</div>=
<div><br></div><div>Probably, &quot;=C2=A0joik_ek sumti_3=C2=A0&quot; shoul=
d also be copied to this FA_elidible part, right? I&#39;m not an expert in =
all these things.</div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;BPFK&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bpfk-list=
+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list@googlegrou=
ps.com">bpfk-list@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list">ht=
tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7bb708c6446ab605130c00b3--