Received: from mail-wi0-f185.google.com ([209.85.212.185]:43959) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1WzUvy-00081M-AM for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:55:07 -0700 Received: by mail-wi0-f185.google.com with SMTP id cc10sf122527wib.2 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :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:content-type; bh=xFPsF9I9wU4Cw5OfvaTAjWCqXYxbENXpLr2SHv4KtfE=; b=tcCj3ethd/dWZ7uOsuC/u0Fz2FMBPzN8X9dMj3giKzL905DK99Ip3fyX9b99hodDhG HMoFa4rSMQh8bpcy6ZCIo99B0Q0h32YqPbTZ7XZEEXso3RGgyGuplYSqXph/Gn4XenPX w1o83HGrWaoPGVjIGyFv1iwwW40j8WLatUyl/QY7SYIImjQasxDKg3N6i16sDmb8SAU8 rjfLw1aYs7o9GcOQHjh/jjP8es7f/1I2XhUKv1ZCNExgRVyAMpi2+yxvs7FPoy356rDH bYimFKe+CZAXfoPEc5KJorMfUao/sD2y3ek20F4KDiBL0zwcoMlBIW5vRJDrRqFaa3tT pIiQ== X-Received: by 10.152.43.134 with SMTP id w6mr2744lal.41.1403632499123; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:59 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.7.37 with SMTP id g5ls428319laa.35.gmail; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.11.229 with SMTP id t5mr354354lbb.10.1403632497816; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x7si131926wiw.1.2014.06.24.10.54.57 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) 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; Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b13so750557wgh.14 for ; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.89.40 with SMTP id bl8mr3332521wjb.90.1403632497398; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.194.71.197 with HTTP; Tue, 24 Jun 2014 10:54:57 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2014 21:54:57 +0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: jbovlaste updated with camxes-morphology From: Gleki Arxokuna To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e010d8a06671d2804fc98a8fa X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_bar: - --089e010d8a06671d2804fc98a8fa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable compare to {ibliardo} which is legal 2014-06-24 21:35 GMT+04:00 la durka : > FYI, this broke vlasisku's import. I've fixed it in the latest revision a= t > github.com/lojban/vlasisku (and my Vlasisku instance is running with an > updated export from yesterday). > > As for camxes.lojban.org, I believe it is updated, but I could be wrong. > For instance, it rejects {bliardo} but accepts {bliiardo} and > {bolrbliardo}. And that leads to my question -- how is {bolrbliardo} lega= l > but {bliardo} illegal? What is the difference, besides the prefix? > > mi'e la durka mu'o > > El martes, 24 de junio de 2014 09:16:26 UTC-4, Riley Martinez-Lynch > escribi=C3=B3: > >> coi jbopre >> >> jbovlaste has been updated to apply camxes morphology when new words are >> entered. The new morphological classifier, "vlatai.py" is part of the >> camxes-py Python parser, and replaces "vlatai", which is bundled with th= e >> jbofihe parser. >> >> vlatai.py adds two types: "bu-letterals" (previously classified as >> "cmavo" or "cmavo cluster") and "zei-lujvo" (previously classified as >> "lujvo"). These new types are subject to camxes parser rules: Invalid >> constructs such as {bu bu} and {zei zei lujvo} are rejected. >> >> Other "magic words" such as {zo} and {zoi} are not currently supported i= n >> combination with {bu} and {zei}. This is an oversight rather than a desi= gn >> choice, so please feel free to file a bug report if you find this is nee= ded. >> >> The 21,940 valsi currently registered in jbovlaste were verified with th= e >> new classifier: 21,829 reported no change, 10 were reclassified as >> bu-letterals, 26 were reclassified as zei-lujvo, 1 was reclassified from >> fu'ivla to lujvo, and 74 valsi were marked as "obsolete": cmevla (22), >> fu'ivla (51) and zei-lujvo (1). >> >> Details of the reclassified words can be found here: >> >> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/47 >> >> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/39 >> >> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/40 >> >> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/43 >> >> https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/44 >> >> The new "obsolete" valsi types are currently treated like the >> "experimental" types in XML and PDF exports: They are marked with a >> warning. >> >> la gleki raised the issue that some words (e.g. {relmast}) which don't >> conform to this version of camxes, ought to in fact be valid. xorxes not= ed >> that only older versions of the camxes/BPFK morphology prohibit such wor= ds. >> >> I checked {relmast} against the Java/Rats! version of camxes which is >> linked on the "Issues With The Lojban Formal Grammar" page: It was not >> accepted. It was also not accepted by camxes.js or either the standard o= r >> experimental ilmentufa grammars. I also checked python-camxes, but it us= es >> the same version of the Java jar that was described above. >> >> I built a new camxes Java/Rats! jar using the latest morphology on the >> tiki, and I can confirm that according to this version of the grammar, >> {relmast} is valid. However, it's not clear whether such a jar is curren= tly >> distributed anywhere. >> >> Based on all of this, my inclination is to update camxes-py as soon as >> possible to use the newest BPFK morphology (where "newest" may mean n ye= ars >> old). However, if I do this, it will no longer be in sync with most othe= r >> implementations of camxes currently distributed. Thoughts, anyone? >> >> Thanks to rlpowell and tene for their assistance in getting the new >> software installed. >> >> mi'e la mukti mu'o >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "lojban" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. --089e010d8a06671d2804fc98a8fa Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
compare to {ibliardo} which is legal


2014-06-24 21:35 GMT+04:00 la= durka <durka42@gmail.com>:
FYI, this broke vlasisku= 9;s import. I've fixed it in the latest revision at github.com/lojban/vlasisku= (and my Vlasisku instance is running with an updated export from yesterday= ).

As for camxes.lo= jban.org, I believe it is updated, but I could be wrong. For instance, = it rejects {bliardo} but accepts {bliiardo} and {bolrbliardo}. And that lea= ds to my question -- how is {bolrbliardo} legal but {bliardo} illegal? What= is the difference, besides the prefix?

mi'e la durka mu'o

El martes, 24 de junio de 2014 09:16:= 26 UTC-4, Riley Martinez-Lynch escribi=C3=B3:

coi jbopre

jbovlaste has been updated to apply camxes morphology when new words are= entered. The new morphological classifier, "vlatai.py" is part o= f the camxes-py Python parser, and replaces "vlatai", which is bu= ndled with the jbofihe parser.

vlatai.py adds two types: "bu-letterals" (previously classifie= d as "cmavo" or "cmavo cluster") and "zei-lujvo&qu= ot; (previously classified as "lujvo"). These new types are subje= ct to camxes parser rules: Invalid constructs such as {bu bu} and {zei zei = lujvo} are rejected.

Other "magic words" such as {zo} and {zoi} are not currently s= upported in combination with {bu} and {zei}. This is an oversight rather th= an a design choice, so please feel free to file a bug report if you find th= is is needed.

The 21,940 valsi currently registered in jbovlaste were verified with th= e new classifier: 21,829 reported no change, 10 were reclassified as bu-let= terals, 26 were reclassified as zei-lujvo, 1 was reclassified from fu'i= vla to lujvo, and 74 valsi were marked as "obsolete": cmevla (22)= , fu'ivla (51) and zei-lujvo (1).=C2=A0

Details of the reclassified words can be found here:

ht= tps://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/47

https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/39

https:= //github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/40

https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/43

https:= //github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/44

The new "obsolete" valsi types are currently treated like the = "experimental" types=C2=A0 in XML and PDF exports: They are marke= d with a warning.

la gleki raised the issue that some words (e.g. {relmast}) which don'= ;t conform to this version of camxes, ought to in fact be valid. xorxes not= ed that only older versions of the camxes/BPFK morphology prohibit such wor= ds.

I checked {relmast} against the Java/Rats! version of camxes which is li= nked on the "Issues With The Lojban Formal Grammar" page: It was = not accepted. It was also not accepted by camxes.js or either the standard = or experimental ilmentufa grammars. I also checked python-camxes, but it us= es the same version of the Java jar that was described above.

I built a new camxes Java/Rats! jar using the latest morphology on the t= iki, and I can confirm that according to this version of the grammar, {relm= ast} is valid. However, it's not clear whether such a jar is currently = distributed anywhere.

Based on all of this, my inclination is to update camxes-py as soon as p= ossible to use the newest BPFK morphology (where "newest" may mea= n n years old). However, if I do this, it will no longer be in sync with mo= st other implementations of camxes currently distributed. Thoughts, anyone?=

Thanks to rlpowell and tene for their assistance in getting the new soft= ware installed.

mi'e la mukti mu'o

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http:= //groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--089e010d8a06671d2804fc98a8fa--