Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 68.230.241.214 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of lojbab@lojban.org) client-ip=68.230.241.214;
Message-ID: <55AD9D78.90107@lojban.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2015 21:16:40 -0400
From: Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com, John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Internal grammar of UI, NAI and CAI
References: <ugKW1q03B56Cr6M01gKYqB>
In-Reply-To: <ugKW1q03B56Cr6M01gKYqB>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.1
X-Spam_score_int: -20
X-Spam_bar: --

On 7/20/2015 12:18 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote:
> 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=B9l=
o 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

Way back, I attempted to define a grammar for strings of namcu and=20
lerfu, and for strings of attitudinals.  Cowan convinced me at the time=20
that it was not a good idea, and wouldn't be worth it anyway.  Among=20
other reasons, there are simply too many varieties of possibilities that=20
we would not think of.  And if we could come up with something flexible=20
enough, it wouldn't be teachable.

I am cc:ing this to John because I think that there were other=20
considerations as well that I am not remembering.

lojbab


--=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.