From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Thu Sep 24 13:27:52 2009
Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <nobody@digitalkingdom.org>)	id 1Mquuu-0001p2-6t	for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:52 -0700
Received: from devbraindump.de ([62.75.244.23] helo=nyx.devbraindump.de)	by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)	(envelope-from <florolf@devbraindump.de>)	id 1Mquul-0001ns-BF	for lojban-list@lojban.org; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:27:52 -0700
Received: by nyx.devbraindump.de (Postfix, from userid 1000)	id 33E32495827E; Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:27:41 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:27:41 +0200
To: lojban-list@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban] PEG-grammar/camxes and selbri negation
Message-ID: <20090924202740.GJ5992@vs244023.vserver.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
From: florolf@devbraindump.de (Florian Larysch)
X-archive-position: 16246
X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0
Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org
X-original-sender: florolf@devbraindump.de
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org
X-list: lojban-list

When discussing selbri negation on IRC, we noticed the following:

The CLL states:
> Negations made with "na'e" or "na'eke" also
> include within their scope any sumti attached to the brivla or tanru
> with "be" or "bei". Such attached sumti are
> considered part of the brivla or tanru

Therefore, a sentence like {mi na'e klama be fu lo birka lo zarci}
should be grouped someway similar to {mi (na'e (klama be fu lo birka))
lo zarci}. camxes however outputs the follwing parse tree:
>   sentence
>   |- CMAVO
>   |     KOhA: mi
>   |- bridiTail3
>      |- tanruUnit1
>      |  |- tanruUnit2
>      |  |  |- CMAVO
>      |  |  |     NAhE: na'e
>      |  |  |- BRIVLA
>      |  |        gismu: klama
>      |  |- linkargs1
>      |     |- CMAVO
>      |     |     BE: be
>      |     |- term1
>      |        |- CMAVO
>      |        |     FA: fu
>      |        |- sumti6
>      |           |- CMAVO
>      |           |     LE: lo
>      |           |- BRIVLA
>      |                 gismu: birka
>      |- sumti6
>         |- CMAVO
>         |     LE: lo
>         |- BRIVLA
>               gismu: zarci

Adding a {ke} ({mi na'e ke klama be fu lo birka lo zarci}) yields:
>   sentence
>   |- CMAVO
>   |     KOhA: mi
>   |- bridiTail3
>      |- tanruUnit2
>      |  |- CMAVO
>      |  |     NAhE: na'e
>      |  |- tanruUnit2
>      |     |- CMAVO
>      |     |     KE: ke
>      |     |- tanruUnit1
>      |        |- BRIVLA
>      |        |     gismu: klama
>      |        |- linkargs1
>      |           |- CMAVO
>      |           |     BE: be
>      |           |- term1
>      |              |- CMAVO
>      |              |     FA: fu
>      |              |- sumti6
>      |                 |- CMAVO
>      |                 |     LE: lo
>      |                 |- BRIVLA
>      |                       gismu: birka
>      |- sumti6
>         |- CMAVO
>         |     LE: lo
>         |- BRIVLA
>               gismu: zarci
Which seems to be more accurate with respect to to what the CLL says.

While this probably isn't a bug per se, it might still hint at some
faulty handling of precedence.

Maybe somebody who is more familiar with the PEG grammar can comment on
this?

mu'o mi'e florolf

PS: In case this turns out to be significant, it was xalbo (Adam) who
pointed this out in the first place.


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.