Received: from mail-la0-f56.google.com ([209.85.215.56]:33180) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YfTqO-00086c-2m; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:14 -0700 Received: by labgd6 with SMTP id gd6sf17655086lab.0; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=C8txBtefjV5DJkPWM38pr4/hdIspWoVFeinj6LZ8VT4=; b=CZJERww9dTuKnyi+zKWkP4wxi/xHOMDjIexM1u8floMgnEuyxdLyqemC8xRUlwCVg6 ooeyqR0i+yyGTrltnb6twDVBl9Wxx0GvwqRDpcVq2bQdDwAUxkDyzzyWi7tktPzl1Wim vIIieceJI2wgEYvs6w6YpuuKL8Lyg8j0IjssK4MCcFx+kh1xsaPnlUX7l1aipH8qmJgR HGhPKHWhMng8juqdM6tcKBPey2gHtM0oibbAwxCltXqAu0N6pPG9KI7078yBCAykh4Xw ZYNUPGeJFfXeXQYc5SZXg9Xa74hbvbdyL6ddnY1qiwKMu7dtIEtdtoS0tJx001rFeY+E zkSQ== X-Received: by 10.152.229.133 with SMTP id sq5mr117298lac.24.1428414420577; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.19.36 with SMTP id b4ls44266lae.46.gmail; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.122.39 with SMTP id lp7mr4117302lbb.5.1428414420126; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sf8si442381wic.2.2015.04.07.06.47.00 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d; Received: by mail-wg0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id dm7so56421487wgb.1 for ; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.181.11.193 with SMTP id ek1mr4799128wid.15.1428414420001; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:47:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (95-210-210-98.ip.skylogicnet.com. [95.210.210.98]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id jt8sm11121221wid.4.2015.04.07.06.46.55 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 07 Apr 2015 06:46:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5523DFCA.40002@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 15:46:50 +0200 From: Ilmen User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [bpfk] Proposal: sumti must always be tagged with "tag" even if it's elidible. References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------040100010904040307050108" X-Original-Sender: ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_bar: - This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------040100010904040307050108 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 07/04/2015 08:21, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > 2015-04-07 1:52 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas >: > > What does "abs_" stand for? Is it really necessary to have two > parallel sets of term rules? > > > Sorry, not me made these modifications. abs_term =3D "absorbable term", "term that becomes a selbritcita when=20 followed by a selbri". I implemented this absorbable/non-absorbable term grammar split in order=20 to implement the standard behavior of selbritcita as per Jbofihe; that=20 is, {lo nu brodo ba brode} parses as {lo nu brodo ba CU brode} in the=20 standard version of Camxes; however, {mi ba brode gi'e pu brodo} parses=20 as {mi CU ba brode gi'e pu brodo}, so the behavior of "ba" varies=20 depending on its environment: if "ba" is within a bridi-tail, it is=20 non-absorbable (it cannot become a selbritcita), but if it is in a=20 bridi-head, it is absorbable as a selbritcita. In the experimental grammar (Camxes-exp), an alternative behavior is=20 implemented: "ba" would become a selbritcita even in the case of {lo nu=20 brodo ba brode} (so this sentence parses as {lo nu brodo CU ba brode}=20 under Camxes-exp.). I know this tag grammar split is rather ugly, but at this time I hadn't=20 been able to find a better solution. Any alternative implementation is=20 welcomed. mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o --=20 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 e= mail 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. --------------040100010904040307050108 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 07/04/2015 08:21, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
2015-04-07 1:52 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjllambi= as@gmail.com>:
What does "abs_" stand for? Is it really necessary to have two parallel sets of term rules?

Sorry, not me made these modifications.

abs_term =3D "absorbable term", "term that becomes a selbritcita when followed by a selbri".

I implemented this absorbable/non-absorbable term grammar split in order to implement the standard behavior of selbritcita as per Jbofihe; that is, {lo nu brodo ba brode} parses as {lo nu brodo ba CU brode} in the standard version of Camxes; however, {mi ba brode gi'e pu brodo} parses as {mi CU ba brode gi'e pu brodo}, so the behavior of "ba" varies depending on its environment: if "ba" is within a bridi-tail, it is non-absorbable (it cannot become a selbritcita), but if it is in a bridi-head, it is absorbable as a selbritcita.

In the experimental grammar (Camxes-exp), an alternative behavior is implemented: "ba" would become a selbritcita even in the case of {lo nu brodo ba brode} (so this sentence parses as {lo nu brodo CU ba brode} under Camxes-exp.).

I know this tag grammar split is rather ugly, but at this time I hadn't been able to find a better solution. Any alternative implementation is welcomed.

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--------------040100010904040307050108--