Received: from mail-la0-f63.google.com ([209.85.215.63]:32997) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YfwZw-0001UA-Az; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:28:06 -0700 Received: by labgd6 with SMTP id gd6sf33610173lab.0; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:57 -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=t4Q3GuNcHZJe1IJQvZXQAraBX2Apm1Vu73SxjGAB9n8=; b=V1shM37LTErTACnH1I0xgk//Z9vbLmPjAxOPFWqUN0wTGZt8bjlRcQ2xAB2RUkRXOF 7+wI9y43R4YVX93LP7d7IquNh+TfigfoC83hEc2Z7qkROxU18p4WTh/AF12XWjusG9Dr JI8VXmwetnGA2L9DOVyjxCc6MKAe9XePm2roFDX+rgAgjCDLjnaZmbJc/ojBl/974xtS 5f6hKhWbixnPRp+14pbHSjr7BjHD9xSqv80ilxEodHSAh8CuDuDUJoTOkyq2sIkfC53K jcEPdF47quuBninqnUJaVyhDsF8HECqh/LX5bgmkv1aQHHsEJqyXEKI/gwW82RekssGy LW8A== X-Received: by 10.152.203.137 with SMTP id kq9mr33598lac.39.1428524877368; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:57 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.204.39 with SMTP id kv7ls241822lac.63.gmail; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.88.73 with SMTP id be9mr255474lab.2.1428524876855; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x233.google.com (mail-wg0-x233.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::233]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id k2si378129wif.0.2015.04.08.13.27.56 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::233; Received: by mail-wg0-x233.google.com with SMTP id k9so77462979wgs.3 for ; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.192.167 with SMTP id hh7mr54394534wjc.151.1428524876726; Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:56 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.0.102] (95-210-223-118.ip.skylogicnet.com. [95.210.223.118]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id n3sm17094897wja.36.2015.04.08.13.27.52 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 08 Apr 2015 13:27:55 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55258F43.5060402@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 08 Apr 2015 22:27:47 +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: <5523DFCA.40002@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------090204050501050803020201" 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::233 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: -2.3 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.3 X-Spam_score_int: -22 X-Spam_bar: -- This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------090204050501050803020201 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 08/04/2015 01:16, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Ilmen > wrote: > > 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. > > > Does "mi ba brode gi'e pu brodo" parse as "mi CU ba brode gi'e pu=20 > brodo" and not as "mi ba (ku) CU brode gi'e pu brodo" in standard=20 > camxes? I think it's the latter. "tag selbri" _should_ have priority=20 > over "tag (ku) selbri", but I don't think it does in current camxes. Standard Camxes.js: ([mi CU] [{ba brode} VAU] [gi'e { VAU} VAU]) > > Does Jbofihe use camxes? I thought it didn't, but this page doesn't=20 > say: http://mw.lojban.org/papri/jbofi%27e No, Jbofihe is a C program, it is not based on a PEG grammar, if I=20 recall correctly. > 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. > > > Which sentence currently uses "term" but couldn't use "abs_term"=20 > instead? Hmm, I just looked, and it seems that gek_termset, LAhE term,=20 > and BE term could have a (slight) problem, in the sense that KU would=20 > not be elidible in "ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) broda", "la'e ba (ku)=20 > broda", "broda be ba (ku) brode". Standard Camxes.js: ge ca ku gi ba ku broda --> ([{ge gi } CU] [broda VAU]) ge ca gi ba broda --> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found. la'e ba ku broda --> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found. la'e ba broda --> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found. broda be ba ku brode --> ([{broda } brode] V= AU) broda be ba brode --> ([{broda } brode] VAU) Experimental Camxes.js: ge ca ku gi ba ku broda --> ([ge {ca ku} gi {ba ku}] [CU {broda VAU}]) ge ca gi ba broda --> SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" found. la'e ba ku broda --> ([FA {la'e LUhU}] [CU {broda VAU}]) la'e ba broda --> ([FA {la'e LUhU}] [CU {broda VAU}]) broda be ba ku brode --> (CU [{broda } brode= ] VAU) broda be ba brode --> (CU [{broda } brode] V= AU) So yeah, {ge ca gi ba broda} is broken for both parsers. {la'e ba (ku) broda} is an experimental grammar if I recall correctly,=20 so it's normal that the standard Camxes rejects it. > > (BTW, "ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) klama" seems to be failing if we elide=20 > the first "ku".) > > Maybe it's better to just make the KU of "tag KU" not elidible in=20 > those three special contexts (are there more?). > Yeah, I've noticed this flaw a few days ago. I'm not sure whether this=20 can be fixed. 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. --------------090204050501050803020201 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 08/04/2015 01:16, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote:

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Ilmen <i= lmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:
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.

Does "mi ba brode gi'e pu brodo" parse as "mi CU ba brode gi'e pu brodo" and not as "mi ba (ku) CU brode gi'e pu brodo" in standard camxes?=C2=A0 I think it's the latter. "tag selbri" _should_ have priority over "tag (ku) selbri", but I don't think it does in current camxes.
Standard Camxes.js: ([mi CU] [{ba brode} VAU] [gi'e {<pu brodo> VAU} VAU])

Does Jbofihe use camxes? I thought it didn't, but this page doesn't say: http://mw.loj= ban.org/papri/jbofi%27e
No, Jbofihe is a C program, it is not based on a PEG grammar, if I recall correctly.

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.

Which sentence currently uses "term" but couldn't use "abs_term" instead? Hmm, I just looked, and it seems that gek_termset, LAhE term, and BE term could have a (slight) problem, in the sense that KU would not be elidible in "ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) broda", "la'e ba (ku) broda", "broda be ba (ku) brode".

Standard Camxes.js:
ge ca ku gi ba ku broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 ([{ge <ca ku&g= t; gi <ba ku>} CU] [broda VAU])
ge ca gi ba broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 SyntaxError: Expected [,]= but "b" found.
la'e ba ku broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b"= found.
la'e ba broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 SyntaxError: Expected [,] but "b" fo= und.
broda be ba ku brode=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 ([{broda <be (=C2=B9ba ku= =C2=B9) BEhO>} brode] VAU)
broda be ba brode=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 ([{broda <be (=C2=B9ba KU=C2= =B9) BEhO>} brode] VAU)

Experimental Camxes.js:
ge ca ku gi ba ku broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 ([ge {ca ku} gi= {ba ku}] [CU {broda VAU}])
ge ca gi ba broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 SyntaxError: Expected [= ,] but "b" found.
la'e ba ku broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 ([FA {la'e <ba ku> LUhU}]= [CU {broda VAU}])
la'e ba broda=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 ([FA {la'e <ba KU> LUhU}] [C= U {broda VAU}])
broda be ba ku brode=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 (CU [{broda <be (=C2=B9b= a ku=C2=B9) BEhO>} brode] VAU)
broda be ba brode=C2=A0 -->=C2=A0 (CU [{broda <be (=C2=B9ba K= U=C2=B9) BEhO>} brode] VAU)

So yeah, {ge ca gi ba broda} is broken for both parsers. {la'e ba (ku) broda} is an experimental grammar if I recall correctly, so it's normal that the standard Camxes rejects it.


(BTW, "ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) klama" seems to be failing if we elide the first "ku".)

Maybe it's better to just make the KU of "tag KU" not elidible in those three special contexts (are there more?).

Yeah, I've noticed this flaw a few days ago. I'm not sure whether this can be fixed.

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.
--------------090204050501050803020201--