From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Nov 03 11:53:44 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:53:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kx5Ue-0000lS-BZ for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:53:44 -0800 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kx5UZ-0000k7-04 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 03 Nov 2008 11:53:44 -0800 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id E54CA947E0 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:53:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id mA3JrBG1006859 for ; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:53:16 +0100 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id mA3JrBWD006858 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:53:11 +0100 Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2008 20:53:11 +0100 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: experimental cmavo in lojgloss. Message-ID: <20081103195311.GK2447@nvg.org> References: <737b61f30811022128n9e8692evefaa820062d2a652@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <737b61f30811022128n9e8692evefaa820062d2a652@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no X-Spam-Score: -0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 14916 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 11:28:15PM -0600, Chris Capel wrote: > I'm wondering how to handle experimental cmavo in Lojgloss. As I see > it, they probably fall into at least two catogories. > > 1) Drops right into an existing selma'o, like BAI. > 2) Constitutes its own selma'o. > > 1 could be handled pretty straightforwardly without having to change > the parser code, just using some configuration. But 2 would probably > be more difficult to handle. At the extreme it would require changing > the grammar and recompiling the parser. It'd be nice to avoid that. So > how common is case 2? Depends on how forgiving you want to make the parser. The official parser just assumes that all unknown cmavo are UI. This will often result in parse failures, but what have you. Camxes (the candidate for the next official parser) does not recognize experimental cmavo at all. One major problem with trying to parse experimental cmavo is that they are very ad-hoc. Often, someone will suggest that some new kind of cmavo is necessary/would be nice, and then grab an arbitrary cmavo form from experimental space (xVV*/CVV+'+V*) without checking if someone else have suggested the same cmavo with a completely different use. As for how common case 2 is - depends on how you count. My educated guess is that new cmavo proposals are about 50/50 additions to existing selma'o and completely new functions. But if you count usages of cmavo, not just the cmavo, the case where you need new rules to parse the text is probably in the majority. For instance, the lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai construct for correcting mistakes is very common on IRC these days. Another point (or, if you like, a stern warning): if you decide you want to handle experimental cmavo and constructs, please flag them as such, prominently. A glosser/parser is a tool that people not only use to make sense of other people's texts, but also to check if their own prose is correct. If they try to use experimental cmavo, they need to know that their Lojban is not quite kosher, and might not be understood by those who aren't down with the latest lingo. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Confusion among -ate ~ -ant pairs is even more prominate, since both are legitimant suffixes. --Adam Albright To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.