From: veion@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi
Message-Id: <199602141942.VAA06542@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
To: cowan@locke.ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 1996 21:42:14 +0200 (EET)
In-Reply-To: <31223588.1DE8@ccil.org> from "John Cowan" at Feb 14, 96 02:18:32 pm
Content-Type: text
Status: U
Content-Length: 1673

John Cowan cusku di'e
> From: John Cowan <cowan@locke.ccil.org>
> Organization: Lojban Central
> Subject: Re: GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
> 
> Regrettably, it can't.  Whatever is done in the preparser rules (900-end) 
> can't refer to things in the earlier rules, on pain of implementing the 
> entire parser within the preparser.  So "NOI sentence" within a tense is 
> impossible, even though it YACCs, it doesn't fit the schema of the 
> parser, which is to keep the compounded forms simple.  Of these, tense 
> (lexer_O) is already the worst offender, and further complications are 
> truly intolerable.
> 

   Have you considered my later posting where the rel_clause was moved
   quite high:

> However,
>
>   adding the following two lines to the rules for 'modifier_82'
>   
>         |  tense_modal_815  relative_clauses_121
>         |  tense_modal_815  relative_clauses_121 BO_508 sumti_90
>
>   (in the unmodified grammar) would give us a working solution.
>
>   Examples:
>   
>      *   mi ba zinoi jeftu ku'o cliva
> or   *   mi cliva bazinoi jeftu
>      *   mi zano'u pimu loi mi gu'arna'a ge'u vi gunka
> or   *   mi vi gunka zano'u pimu loi mi gu'arna'a
>      *   mi xabju vanoi mitre li paxaki'o bo la'o sy Helsinki sy

This form is quite general, perhaps too general, but it parses OK
and it could be restricted as required by replacing various components
with more restricted representatives: a subset of tense_modals,
a subset of rel_clause and sumti types allowed -- but I'm not quite sure
a restriction would be necessary. Almost anything at this position is more
flexible -- and certainly much simpler -- than my original scheme.

   Veijo