Received: from mail-ie0-f192.google.com ([209.85.223.192]:34607) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YdEUc-0002jl-IE; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:59:28 -0700 Received: by iebtr6 with SMTP id tr6sf17192871ieb.1; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:59:16 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=VqwmO6O6bLPjznvwJuwH7QK7i/ZskHhamDTMJVUdtks=; b=fKwDkGsbxbXoyJ3sMFOaCvjxCfCQZAgpoyNxk+ub+XDVyoe6XYh3zzPYqCPnYlBd7b uwB//byaO0NHH0oyBu5aU/ekKtPc3sOHzrv3uF2wGhkdOjhz8kuYgIvRS2hGTyjx8f/z MQoJNf1kbhPrB6FMzTE3O4ezdd9jKJGLeQevTtv1UPTyEQeWlNZTXa+TUh/zTivdg1ij zvzg6gW/QBsRyTYs66mqFwuHsXaaHOQ8wYlVSr1EAJUzsVS1P0jfvOpU0ikOStgnMIHG QNedvtNUFF2T1u9Gfb/NfZqOhbHqe2It5bRG/sK6Yf+YbNZwYRa313M63MnDJooYQXw6 8mYA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=VqwmO6O6bLPjznvwJuwH7QK7i/ZskHhamDTMJVUdtks=; b=YqOwAMUbA85a4w1wogcPyIvrg0B+q7q04xeAsBPj7jq2paGR5kcY0zovXHUDPZIxBJ Yw9D22l8Z6xuCZAzbY5aMTpM5KdEDbKyPzx/mrif41ZsfAzBnnrFg085KC6RaOYm4HTl vhm2qD4S1xnjG9WOH3If/pawjg/IeZGeLdhajfOZ07xBrqPibOx0njJZZGZYCj/Ty4Rd TOdoOX9MHBcgYxxfQ0PkKANYe1F9zDBYNTwWiumX9vT+OFZmFL22/TK98amJOWhX9nq5 nKhklEzWuys/yu5U17tUfryCONd2rdV2jzbKyY1L7bsS4nu7xRHFkMY8VGJmkUjBFX2U sRjA== X-Received: by 10.50.164.228 with SMTP id yt4mr164860igb.2.1427878756202; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:59:16 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.137.39 with SMTP id l39ls150585iod.57.gmail; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:59:15 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.143.33 with SMTP id sb1mr164447igb.13.1427878755904; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 01:59:15 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 01:59:14 -0700 (PDT) From: guskant To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: [bpfk] selma'o ZEhEI and PEG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2144_197539681.1427878754478" X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 972099695765 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_bar: - Content-Length: 9324 ------=_Part_2144_197539681.1427878754478 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2145_39700305.1427878754479" ------=_Part_2145_39700305.1427878754479 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mercredi 1 avril 2015 15:24:08 UTC+9, la gleki a =C3=A9crit : > > That still adds a lot of strings to the grammar. > Can you think of a better way with a different grammar that will allow us= =20 > to glue semantics from one word and grammar from another word? > > 2015-04-01 2:45 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas > >: > >> >> gleki asked about incorporating selma'o ZEhEI to PEG and I said it would= =20 >> require modifying lots and lots of rules, basically all the selma'o rule= s.=20 >> But maybe not. >> >> I was thinking of ZEhEI as being similar to ZEI, but that's probably not= =20 >> the best way to think about it. ZEhEI is actually much more like BU. The= =20 >> only difference is that instead of creating something like BY, it create= s=20 >> something like BAhE. So we only need to do for ZEhEI wrt to BAhE what we= do=20 >> for BU wrt to BY. >> >> This is still not trivial, because BU interacts with ZEI in weird ways,= =20 >> and now we'd be adding a third ingredient into the mix, which makes it a= ll=20 >> even more messy. But the required modifications would probably look=20 >> something like this: >> >> zehei-clause <- pre-clause zehei-clause-no-pre >> zehei-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zehei-tail? zei-tail / zehei-tail? bu= -tail)* zehei-tail post-clause >> >> zei-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zei-tail? bu-tail / zei-tail? zehei-tai= l)* zei-tail post-clause >> >> bu-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (bu-tail? zei-tail / bu-tail? zehei-tail)= * bu-tail post-clause >> >> zehei-tail <- ZEhEI-clause+ >> >> pre-zei-bu <- (!ZEhEI-clause !BU-clause !ZEI-clause !SI-clause !SA-claus= e !SU-clause !FAhO-clause any-word-SA-handling) si-clause? >> >> ; turns any word into a BAhE modifier=20 >> >> ZEhEI-clause <- ZEhEI-pre ZEhEI-post >> ZEhEI-pre <- pre-clause ZEhEI spaces? >> ZEhEI-post <- spaces? >> >> ; next word intensifier=20 >> BAhE-clause <- (BAhE-pre BAhE-post)+ / zehei-clause+ >> BAhE-pre <- BAhE spaces? >> BAhE-post <- si-clause? !ZEI-clause !BU-clause !ZEhEI-clause >> >> I haven't tested any of this, and it may require further tweaking, but t= hat's the general idea. It may also be necessary to add !ZEhEI-clause where= ver there's a !ZEI-clause !BU-clause, but I suspect many of those are actua= lly redundant. >> >> mu'o mi'e xorxes >> >> > I prefer abandoning the selma'o ZEhEI and adopting a cmavo compound of=20 BU+MAI instead. It would be simple to let {ze'ei} be of selma'o MAI. For example, the definition of {xo'e}=20 http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/xo'e is currently=20 zo'e ze'ei pa Let's modify it as follows: zo'e bu ze'ei pa and change the selma'o for {ze'ei} to MAI.=20 --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. ------=_Part_2145_39700305.1427878754479 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mercredi 1 avril 2015 15:24:08 UTC+9, la gleki = a =C3=A9crit :
That still adds a lot of strings to the grammar.
Can you think of= a better way with a different grammar that will allow us to glue semantics= from one word and grammar from another word?

2015-04-01 2:45 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas <jjlla...= @gmail.com>:

gleki asked about incorporating selma'o ZEhEI to PEG and I said= it would require modifying lots and lots of rules, basically all the selma= 'o rules. But maybe not.

I was thinking of ZEhEI a= s being similar to ZEI, but that's probably not the best way to think about= it. ZEhEI is actually much more like BU. The only difference is that inste= ad of creating something like BY, it creates something like BAhE. So we onl= y need to do for ZEhEI wrt to BAhE what we do for BU wrt to BY.
<= br>
This is still not trivial, because BU interacts with ZEI in w= eird ways, and now we'd be adding a third ingredient into the mix, which ma= kes it all even more messy. But the required modifications would probably l= ook something like this:

zehei-clause <- pre-clause zehei-clause-no-pre
zehei-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zehei-tail? zei-tail / zehei-tail? bu=
-tail)* zehei-tail post-clause
zei-cla=
use-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zei-tail? bu-tail / zei-tail? zehei-tail)* zei=
-tail post-clause

bu-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (bu-tail? zei-tail / bu-tail? zehei-tail)=
* bu-tail post-clause
zehei-tail <- ZEhEI-clause+
pre-zei-bu <- (!ZEhEI-claus=
e !BU-clause !ZEI-clause !SI-clause !SA-clause !SU-clause !FAhO-clause any-=
word-SA-handling) si-clause?

;       =
  turns any word into a BAhE modifier 
ZEhEI-clause <- ZEhEI-pre ZEhEI-post
ZEhEI-pre <- pre-clause ZEhEI spaces?
ZEhEI-post <- spaces?
;         next word intensifie=
r=20
BAhE-clause <- (BAhE-pre BAhE-post)+ / zehei-clause+
BAhE-pre <- BAhE spaces?
BAhE-post <- si-clause? !ZEI-clause !BU-clause !ZEhEI-clause
I haven't tested an=
y of this, and it may require further tweaking, but that's the general idea=
. It may also be necessary to add !ZEhEI-clause wherever there's a !ZEI-cla=
use !BU-clause, but I suspect many of those are actually redundant.<=
/pre>
mu'o mi'e xorxes
=


I prefer abandoning the selma'o ZEhEI and adoptin= g a cmavo compound of BU+MAI instead. It would be simple to let {ze'ei} be = of selma'o MAI.

For example, the definition of {xo= 'e} 
http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/xo'e
is curr= ently 

zo'e ze'ei pa

Let's modify it as follows:

zo'e bu ze'ei pa

and change the selma'o for {ze'ei} to MAI. 
=

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to bpfk-list= +unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at ht= tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_2145_39700305.1427878754479-- ------=_Part_2144_197539681.1427878754478--