Received: from mail-lb0-f188.google.com ([209.85.217.188]:34675) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YdRxj-0007Ow-8E; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:21 -0700 Received: by lbiv13 with SMTP id v13sf23937527lbi.1; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=QRKT2DXGCSjzKAb/c2Tbv6OqPx2EMhdD9wnFjsYK++Y=; b=Qxzyta1ll+/JcZH94XPe7BHGFzxH/Z58qthE+EdiH8BF0meWf1j41BEUT+8Htv0xKB JvZi5Rq8jtQBbokqxTyWDm5QSz9j2k18U/4CGg0XUE3b3KYXMhx8HJ3ypS2+2nGnyILJ 2yYJbNXNO/skEaLoQwlFc96EbRWjM9BdELtopX3P//qQGa2FWj9vAXlQEhBG3Xe+pOg/ WVmMR4+j8zLOo/uxAKixp3Gq8+7Ym2KlLZHthU0nBEAowHePbqkxw5/rYyD+vDwk/83A XK+bxPxF1l0PHklY7879KAq+bIaCLE4mn4dkAw1vS2ZPAjzdirDO51j7F+z2uHJEhyEj 4xOA== X-Received: by 10.180.92.169 with SMTP id cn9mr115652wib.6.1427930530883; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.23.72 with SMTP id k8ls1215237wif.35.canary; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.221.65 with SMTP id qc1mr11519147wjc.7.1427930530621; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22d.google.com (mail-wg0-x22d.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id sf8si208075wic.2.2015.04.01.16.22.10 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d; Received: by mail-wg0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id dm7so68904548wgb.1 for ; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.94.164 with SMTP id dd4mr90079327wjb.56.1427930530223; Wed, 01 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.56.72 with HTTP; Wed, 1 Apr 2015 16:22:10 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2015 20:22:10 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] Improvements to fragments in ilmentufa parser From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04102049bb10512b1fc1f X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: 4837 --047d7bb04102049bb10512b1fc1f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > > It appears that those two strings: > bridi-tail-3 <- selbri? tail-terms / gek-sentence > tail-terms <- terms? VAU-clause? free* !ZOhU-clause > > make isolate {pa} not parseable. Probably because if selbri = "" and > tail-terms = "" then it goes wild. > > Can you check if this is true? > Right, the rule fragment will never be reached, because the empty string will always satisfy statement: paragraph <- (statement / fragment) (I-clause !jek !joik !joik-jek free* (statement / fragment)?)* "poi broda" and "be ko'a" should suffer the same fate as "pa". You should reverse the order of fragment and statement to (fragment / statement), so that fragment is tested first, but also remove from fragment all the fragments that are now proper statements. So I think you'd only be left with: fragment <- ek free* / quantifier / relative-clauses / links / linkargs mu'o mi'e xorxes -- 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 email 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. --047d7bb04102049bb10512b1fc1f Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 7:02 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.n= ame@gmail.com> wrote:
<= br>
It appears that those two strings:
bridi-tail-3 <- selbri? tail-terms / gek-sentence
tail-terms <- terms? VAU-clause? free* !ZOhU-clause

= make isolate {pa} not parseable. Probably because if selbri =3D &quo= t;" and tail-terms =3D "" then it goes wild.

<= /div>
Can you check if this is true?

Right, the rule fragment will never be reached, becau= se the empty string will always satisfy statement:
  paragraph <- (statement / fragment) (I-clause =
!jek !joik !joik-jek free* (statement / fragment)?)*
"poi broda" and "be ko&=
#39;a" should suffer the same fate as "pa".
You should reverse the order of frag= ment and statement to (fragment / statement), so that fragment is tested fi= rst, but also remove from fragment all the fragments that are now proper st= atements. So I think you'd only be left with:
  fragment <- ek free* / quantifier / relative-clauses / lin=
ks / linkargs
mu'o mi'e xorxe=
s

=

--
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.
--047d7bb04102049bb10512b1fc1f--