Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::229 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::229;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 19:18:36 +0300
Message-ID: <CAO7bV+i4_hbRChSdv543-uUdsvoqmUSvq3axVvXAQRTqc8Y25w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [bpfk] Internal grammar of UI, NAI and CAI
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com, 
	"lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1136cbd81a4386051b50e67c
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: -

--001a1136cbd81a4386051b50e67c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Proposal.

In simple words the structure of attitudinal is proposed as

((UI1 ROhA*) DAI*)+

It means that {ro'a} series modify UI1 particles but not modify each other
(like if they were connected using {je}). After that {dai} follow (again as
if connected using {je} between themselves).
The problem is that a string of DAI should be parsed from right to left:
([UI1 DAI] DAI)
- here the second DAI wraps UI1 DAI, the first DAI wraps (i.e applies
itself to) UI1.

PEG parses from left to right hence I had to make the following rule:
loi_DAI_rule =3D (DAI loi_DAI_rule?)
i.e. recursion is made to the right which isn't very correct but probably
unavoidable given the current formal grammar. We could hardcode only up to
two DAI but what if we need more?


Also each of UI1, ROhA, DAI can be modified with NAI/CAI that in their turn
can modify each other ({nai sai} is not the same as {sai nai}).

In other words, UI/NAI/CAI are split into 4 groups:
1. interjections like UI1.
2. interjection categorizers like {ro'a}
3. interjection rotators like {dai}
4. right scalers like NAI and CAI

Other attitudinals can go into one of these new series. This scheme doesn't
show all of them for simplicity. E.g. probably all {sei}-clauses should go
to the 1. group.

NAI/CAI (right scalers) don't belong to interjections, they don't have
illocutionary force, nor are they comments to text. Like NAhE (left
scalers) they operate with scales although modify constructs marked to the
left of them. Unlike left scalers they also modify interjections,
categorizers and rotators but that's because they are so powerful. Outside
1.,2.,3. right scalers modify sumtcita.

Note also that PEG previously allowed indicators (i.e. UI) in post-clause
of almost all constructs. This can make sense but not for UI themselves
since we don't want recursive embedding here. When constructs from 1,2,3,4
need to modify each other we handle this specially.

Also according to this proposal NAI has an homophonic selmaho (where all
its members are also homophones) which is used as right connective negator,
e.g. {je nai}. This second NAI is to be treated separately in the grammar,
is to create different nodes in the parse tree, obviously it can't be
specified in post-clause of any construct. Instead, it is to be limited to
the rules specifying connectives. The same is for NA which has an
homophonic selmaho used as left connective negator.
E.g. there should be a clear difference between parsing
{ge nai ui} and {ge ui nai}.
In the first case it's {(ge nai) ui}, in the second it's {ge (ui nai)}.
In the first case {nai} is a part of the connective that has no relation to
attitudinals.
In the second case the connective is {ge} which is then modified by {ui
nai} attutidinal.
It would make little sense in parsing the first as {ge (nai ui)} since we
probably don't want to mark only {nai} part (and if we did how could we
mark {ge} in {ge nai} using {uinai}? hint: {fu'e ... fu'o} won't help
unless further fixed). It's better to apply attitudinals to {ge nai} as a
whole.

Another proposal is to allow right scalers for sumti and tanru units
(selbrisle) too, where they will work as
sai ~=3D> barda lo ka
ru'e ~=3D> cmalu lo ka
or more correctly increase/decrease the average value measured.
So {pusaiku} will be something like {puzuku}.
So {coi nai ui lo mo ku nai ui} would parse as [{<coi nai> ui} {<(=C2=B9lo =
mo
ku=C2=B9) nai> ui} DOhU]

The current implementation of these two proposals can be tested at
http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/altatufa-stodi.html

--=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.

--001a1136cbd81a4386051b50e67c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>Proposal.<br></div><div><br></div><div>In simple word=
s the structure of attitudinal is proposed as</div><div><br></div><div>((UI=
1 ROhA*) DAI*)+<br></div><div><br></div><div>It means that {ro&#39;a} serie=
s modify UI1 particles but not modify each other (like if they were connect=
ed using {je}). After that {dai} follow (again as if connected using {je} b=
etween themselves).</div><div>The problem is that a string of DAI should be=
 parsed from right to left:</div><div>([UI1 DAI] DAI)</div><div>- here the =
second DAI wraps UI1 DAI, the first DAI wraps (i.e applies itself to) UI1.<=
/div><div><br></div><div>PEG parses from left to right hence I had to make =
the following rule:</div><div><div>loi_DAI_rule =3D (DAI loi_DAI_rule?)</di=
v></div><div>i.e. recursion is made to the right which isn&#39;t very corre=
ct but probably unavoidable given the current formal grammar. We could hard=
code only up to two DAI but what if we need more?</div><div><br></div><div>=
<br></div><div>Also each of UI1, ROhA, DAI can be modified with NAI/CAI tha=
t in their turn can modify each other ({nai sai} is not the same as {sai na=
i}).</div><div><br></div><div>In other words, UI/NAI/CAI are split into 4 g=
roups:</div><div>1. interjections like UI1.</div><div>2. interjection categ=
orizers like {ro&#39;a}</div><div>3. interjection rotators like {dai}</div>=
<div>4. right scalers like NAI and CAI</div><div><br></div><div>Other attit=
udinals can go into one of these new series. This scheme doesn&#39;t show a=
ll of them for simplicity. E.g. probably all {sei}-clauses should go to the=
 1. group.</div><div><br></div><div>NAI/CAI (right scalers) don&#39;t belon=
g to interjections, they don&#39;t have illocutionary force, nor are they c=
omments to text. Like NAhE (left scalers) they operate with scales although=
 modify constructs marked to the left of them. Unlike left scalers they als=
o modify interjections, categorizers and rotators but that&#39;s because th=
ey are so powerful. Outside 1.,2.,3. right scalers modify sumtcita.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Note also that PEG previously allowed indicators (i.e. UI=
) in post-clause of almost all constructs. This can make sense but not for =
UI themselves since we don&#39;t want recursive embedding here. When constr=
ucts from 1,2,3,4 need to modify each other we handle this specially.</div>=
<div><br></div><div>Also according to this proposal NAI has an homophonic s=
elmaho (where all its members are also homophones) which is used as right c=
onnective negator, e.g. {je nai}. This second NAI is to be treated separate=
ly in the grammar, is to create different nodes in the parse tree, obviousl=
y it can&#39;t be specified in post-clause of any construct. Instead, it is=
 to be limited to the rules specifying connectives. The same is for NA whic=
h has an homophonic selmaho used as left connective negator.<br></div><div>=
E.g. there should be a clear difference between parsing</div><div>{ge nai u=
i} and {ge ui nai}.</div><div>In the first case it&#39;s {(ge nai) ui}, in =
the second it&#39;s {ge (ui nai)}.</div><div>In the first case {nai} is a p=
art of the connective that has no relation to attitudinals.</div><div>In th=
e second case the connective is {ge} which is then modified by {ui nai} att=
utidinal.</div><div>It would make little sense in parsing the first as {ge =
(nai ui)} since we probably don&#39;t want to mark only {nai} part (and if =
we did how could we mark {ge} in {ge nai} using {uinai}? hint: {fu&#39;e ..=
. fu&#39;o} won&#39;t help unless further fixed). It&#39;s better to apply =
attitudinals to {ge nai} as a whole.</div><div><br></div><div>Another propo=
sal is to allow right scalers for sumti and tanru units (selbrisle) too, wh=
ere they will work as=C2=A0</div><div>sai ~=3D&gt; barda lo ka</div><div>ru=
&#39;e ~=3D&gt; cmalu lo ka</div><div>or more correctly increase/decrease t=
he average value measured.</div><div>So {pusaiku} will be something like {p=
uzuku}.</div><div>So {coi nai ui lo mo ku nai ui} would parse as [{&lt;coi =
nai&gt; ui} {&lt;(=C2=B9lo mo ku=C2=B9) nai&gt; ui} DOhU]</div><div><br></d=
iv><div>The current implementation of these two proposals can be tested at<=
/div><div><a href=3D"http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/altatufa-sto=
di.html" target=3D"_blank">http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/altatu=
fa-stodi.html</a><br></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 />

--001a1136cbd81a4386051b50e67c--