Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5523DFCA.40002@gmail.com>
References: <CAO7bV+gSSGpnQUG=P08yPspQqPRmbZrxH6jxvAFiabjdqfhCeg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7tK2ckRDgQodpmDWgB7dHpKoHxLh=qDREYD9UENKq4SYSuxg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAO7bV+js08A6K6Q_LvmOfMCRui=8p5a3rbk9VhxtJvMbLk9RXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<5523DFCA.40002@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 20:16:15 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2cA7aY6OntFL514YcaWs01NEcZVgzMC67kYzzB-A2dyJg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [bpfk] Proposal: sumti must always be tagged with "tag" even if
 it's elidible.
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b8743f8f406f505132a990b
Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -
Content-Length: 6127

--047d7b8743f8f406f505132a990b
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

> abs_term = "absorbable term", "term that becomes a selbritcita when
> followed by a selbri".
>
> I implemented this absorbable/non-absorbable term grammar split in order
> to implement the standard behavior of selbritcita as per Jbofihe; that is,
> {lo nu brodo ba brode} parses as {lo nu brodo ba CU brode} in the standard
> version of Camxes; however, {mi ba brode gi'e pu brodo} parses as {mi CU ba
> brode gi'e pu brodo}, so the behavior of "ba" varies depending on its
> environment: if "ba" is within a bridi-tail, it is non-absorbable (it
> cannot become a selbritcita), but if it is in a bridi-head, it is
> absorbable as a selbritcita.
>

Does "mi ba brode gi'e pu brodo" parse as "mi CU ba brode gi'e pu brodo"
and not as "mi ba (ku) CU brode gi'e pu brodo" in standard camxes?  I think
it's the latter. "tag selbri" _should_ have priority over "tag (ku)
selbri", but I don't think it does in current camxes.

Does Jbofihe use camxes? I thought it didn't, but this page doesn't say:
http://mw.lojban.org/papri/jbofi%27e

I know this tag grammar split is rather ugly, but at this time I hadn't
> been able to find a better solution. Any alternative implementation is
> welcomed.
>

Which sentence currently uses "term" but couldn't use "abs_term" instead?
Hmm, I just looked, and it seems that gek_termset, LAhE term, and BE term
could have a (slight) problem, in the sense that KU would not be elidible
in "ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) broda", "la'e ba (ku) broda", "broda be ba (ku)
brode".

(BTW, "ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) klama" seems to be failing if we elide the
first "ku".)

Maybe it's better to just make the KU of "tag KU" not elidible in those
three special contexts (are there more?).

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.

--047d7b8743f8f406f505132a990b
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Ilmen <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mai=
lto:ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com</a>&=
gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);bord=
er-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF">abs_term =3D &quot;absorbable t=
erm&quot;, &quot;term that becomes a selbritcita when
    followed by a selbri&quot;.<br>
    <br>
    I implemented this absorbable/non-absorbable term grammar split in
    order to implement the standard behavior of selbritcita as per
    Jbofihe; that is, {lo nu brodo ba brode} parses as {lo nu brodo ba
    CU brode} in the standard version of Camxes; however, {mi ba brode
    gi&#39;e pu brodo} parses as {mi CU ba brode gi&#39;e pu brodo}, so the
    behavior of &quot;ba&quot; varies depending on its environment: if &quo=
t;ba&quot; is
    within a bridi-tail, it is non-absorbable (it cannot become a
    selbritcita), but if it is in a bridi-head, it is absorbable as a
    selbritcita.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Does &quot;mi ba=
 brode gi&#39;e pu brodo&quot; parse as &quot;mi CU ba brode gi&#39;e pu br=
odo&quot; and not as &quot;mi ba (ku) CU brode gi&#39;e pu brodo&quot; in s=
tandard camxes?=C2=A0 I think it&#39;s the latter. &quot;tag selbri&quot; _=
should_ have priority over &quot;tag (ku) selbri&quot;, but I don&#39;t thi=
nk it does in current camxes.</div><div><br></div><div>Does Jbofihe use cam=
xes? I thought it didn&#39;t, but this page doesn&#39;t say: <a href=3D"htt=
p://mw.lojban.org/papri/jbofi%27e">http://mw.lojban.org/papri/jbofi%27e</a>=
<br></div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);=
border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text=3D"#000000" bgcolor=3D"=
#FFFFFF">
    I know this tag grammar split is rather ugly, but at this time I
    hadn&#39;t been able to find a better solution. Any alternative
    implementation is welcomed.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Which=
 sentence currently uses &quot;term&quot; but couldn&#39;t use &quot;abs_te=
rm&quot; instead? Hmm, I just looked, and it seems that gek_termset, LAhE t=
erm, and BE term could have a (slight) problem, in the sense that KU would =
not be elidible in &quot;ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) broda&quot;, &quot;la&#39;e =
ba (ku) broda&quot;, &quot;broda be ba (ku) brode&quot;.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>(BTW, &quot;ge ca (ku) gi ba (ku) klama&quot; seems to be failing if=
 we elide the first &quot;ku&quot;.)<br></div><div><br></div><div>Maybe it&=
#39;s better to just make the KU of &quot;tag KU&quot; not elidible in thos=
e three special contexts (are there more?).</div><div><br></div><div>mu&#39=
;o mi&#39;e xorxes</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;BPFK&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bpfk-list=
+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:bpfk-list@googlegrou=
ps.com">bpfk-list@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list">ht=
tp://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--047d7b8743f8f406f505132a990b--