Received-SPF: none (google.com: lojbab@lojban.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=68.230.241.213;
Message-ID: <5528F333.4060602@lojban.org>
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2015 06:10:59 -0400
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [bpfk] Several nested giheks in bridi tail in PEG
References: <CAO7bV+i4N5wL-q8cvKMyArA63TF3M5Tj6k89X6V9JzCyDyo5ag@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO7bV+i4N5wL-q8cvKMyArA63TF3M5Tj6k89X6V9JzCyDyo5ag@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
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: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

On 4/11/2015 5:03 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> The "official" PEG has this:
>
> bridi-tail <- bridi-tail-1 (gihek stag? KE-clause free* bridi-tail
> KEhE-clause? free* tail-terms)?
> SPACE bridi-tail-sa <- bridi-tail-start (term / !bridi-tail-start
> (sa-word / SA-clause !bridi-tail-start ) )* SA-clause &bridi-tail
>
> bridi-tail-start <- ME-clause / NUhA-clause / NU-clause / NA-clause
> !KU-clause / NAhE-clause !BO-clause / selbri / tag bridi-tail-start /
> KE-clause bridi-tail-start / bridi-tail
>
> bridi-tail-1 <- bridi-tail-2 (gihek !(stag? BO-clause) !(stag?
> KE-clause) free* bridi-tail-2 tail-terms)*
>
> bridi-tail-2 <- bridi-tail-3 (gihek stag? BO-clause free* bridi-tail-2
> tail-terms)?
>
>
> Could you please provide examples where gihek in bridi-tail,
> bridi-tail-1 and bridi-tail-2 rules matches? I just thought that only
> one type of gihek in bridi tails was possible but PEG tells me otherwise
> so I want to distinguish them when I face them in a real text.


I can't answer any question about the whys and wherefores of the PEG 
grammar since I don't understand PEG, but I probably could do so for the 
corresponding YACC grammar, if you cannot get answers.

I'm guessing from the above that you are wondering why the multiple 
bridi-tail rules exist.  In the YACC equivalent, the nested rules ensure 
that GEK (forethought connectives) group more tightly than any 
afterthought connectives, that GIhEK_BO groups next, then plain GIhEKs, 
and then GIhEK_KE, if more than one form occurs in a complex sentence.

It is probably rather unlikely that people would mix grouping types, but 
the YACC grammar was designed to handle a lot of weird things that might 
cause ambiguity, even if we thought they weren't likely.

broda le xekri gi'ake brode le blanu gi'o brodi le blabi gi'ubo ganai 
brodo le xunre gi brodu le pelxu

seems to pass the official parser and uses all of the constructs.

Hope this is relevant.

lojbab

-- 
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.