Received: from mail-wi0-f184.google.com ([209.85.212.184]:33658) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Ye8gp-0000bi-IM; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:47 -0700 Received: by wiwh11 with SMTP id h11sf31832152wiw.0; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:36 -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=eWmLlbi62/B6Z34eQvD3xPcEmVEGcSNFrYtsJdtaPY4=; b=pv4pLm5/Aw9nLK6nHXu3b5qK/GDF3B+83bn8dVVvYNb1loMaIxcdoFQKJZZz8UZ6QY PMlePB1gtDNd1N9Kjb++V0WzmvpLvipMHzbJ0HRQs4/JrJWzk3u55o6ek/i7BPAFZfAt /rRC9/Vt0mMNe8z4UMJ0vcgag8SfJKY1oQTw0DWdtDZrQvjUKT6iDfYoSVsg374mUGrr jry5I4qYadFRwoKu340Bz6QeP8oGJSkZ72xYa8K+fa0WenQJuEp1mIpTp4dBOtCOGsd3 t7UgV7oZwc4SbmIFkQbJ5aO9R0xcgfPGxuWm1I0XeL1MTY31Yrg1PAdgM8VwfeXL+rvg AWCw== X-Received: by 10.152.5.199 with SMTP id u7mr55254lau.35.1428094776761; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.152.22.164 with SMTP id e4ls309568laf.18.gmail; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.14.38 with SMTP id m6mr943848lbc.12.1428094776203; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wg0-x22f.google.com (mail-wg0-x22f.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id c8si341419wiw.1.2015.04.03.13.59.36 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c00::22f; Received: by mail-wg0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id m6so119175081wgd.2 for ; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.94.164 with SMTP id dd4mr8563511wjb.56.1428094776069; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 13:59:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.27.56.72 with HTTP; Fri, 3 Apr 2015 13:59:35 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <87a8631e-1155-4a74-a1c4-47c79a5fe96f@googlegroups.com> Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 17:59:35 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] selma'o ZEhEI and PEG From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bb04102d5558b0512d83991 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::22f 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: 9258 --047d7bb04102d5558b0512d83991 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > Can we rewrite how {zei} works and postulate that the last part of words > glued together with {zei} determines its grammar? > Thus, {panpi zei coi} will become a vocative but {coi zei panpi} will be a > brivla as well as {broda zei brode zei panpi}? > This will eliminate at least one usage of {ze'ei}. > I think the right way to go about it is this: (1) implement "ze'ei", either as a member of SI or in its own selma'o ZEhEI. (2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, given that "ze'ei" will then cover most of its uses. (3) replace "ze'ei" with "zei", since it would be no longer in use. We don't have (1) working properly yet, so (2) and (3) are premature, but I would be in favor of (2) and (3) once (1) is working properly. I'm not sure what {coi zei coi} could mean as a brivla and what would it be > its place structure. > Like any lujvo, it could be defined as anything, it could mean "x1 says 'hi!' to x2", for example. In actual usage, most of the uses of "zei" are with a brivla as the second word, so I don't think it would be a great loss to restrict zei-compounds to only be brivla when the last element is a brivla. As for (1), I think making use of selma'o SI is the best option, but si_clause has to be moved from post_clause to pre_clause so that the SI-tagged word attaches to the word that follows, not the one that precedes, as it does now: post_clause = spaces? indicators* pre_clause = BAhE_clause? si_clause? (In fact, I think "spaces?" should be absorbed by "post_word", not by "post_clause", since spaces don't really belong to this level of the grammar, so "post_clause" should only absorb indicators and free.) (I removed the "!BU_clause !ZEI_clause" too because I don't think they do anything, but perhaps they need to be restored.) Additionally, we need to eliminate "intro_si_clause", which is no longer needed, but we have to replace it with a final "si_clause" for the case when "si" is not followed by anything. Something like this: text = intro_null NAI_clause* text_part_2 (!text_1 joik_jek)? text_1? si_clause? faho_clause EOF? Although this means that a text ending in "word ze'ei" will be grammatical. Perhaps we can force it to mean "word ze'ei fa'o" by reformulating "fa'o" as an elidable terminator, so that it is restored like all the other terminators. Then we can get rid of that additional "si_clause?", since FAhO_clause already has a pre_clause. In conclusion, I do think moving "si_clause" from "post_clause" to "pre_clause" is The Right Thing(tm). Opinions? 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. --047d7bb04102d5558b0512d83991 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On F= ri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmai= l.com> wrote:
Can we rew= rite how {zei} works and postulate that the last part of words glued togeth= er with {zei} determines its grammar?
Thus, {panpi zei coi} will become= a vocative but {coi zei panpi} will be a brivla as well as {broda zei brod= e zei panpi}?
This will eliminate at least one usage of {ze'e= i}.

I think the right way to go= about it is this:

(1) implement "ze'ei&q= uot;, either as a member of SI or in its own selma'o ZEhEI.
(= 2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, given that "ze'ei" will then co= ver most of its uses.
(3) replace "ze'ei" with &quo= t;zei", since it would be no longer in use.=C2=A0

=
We don't have (1) working properly yet, so (2) and (3) are prematu= re, but I would be in favor of (2) and (3) once (1) is working properly.=C2= =A0

I'm not = sure what {coi zei coi} could mean as a brivla and what would it be its pla= ce structure.

Like any lujvo, i= t could be defined as anything, it could mean "x1 says 'hi!' t= o x2", for example. In actual usage, most of the uses of "zei&quo= t; are with a brivla as the second word, so I don't think it would be a= great loss to restrict zei-compounds to only be brivla when the last eleme= nt is a brivla.

As for (1), I think making use of = selma'o SI is the best option, but si_clause has to be moved from post_= clause to pre_clause so that the SI-tagged word attaches to the word that f= ollows, not the one that precedes, as it does now:

post_clause =3D space= s? indicators*

pre_clause =3D BAhE_clause? si_clause?

(In fact, I think "spaces?" = should be absorbed by "post_word", not by "post_clause"= , since spaces don't really belong to this level of the grammar, so &qu= ot;post_clause" should only absorb indicators and free.)=

(I removed the "!BU_clause !ZEI_clause"= too because I don't think they do anything, but perhaps they need to b= e restored.)

Additionally, we need to eliminate &q= uot;intro_si_clause", which is no longer needed, but we have to replac= e it with a final "si_clause" for the case when "si" is= not followed by anything.=C2=A0

Something like th= is:

=
text =3D intro_nu= ll NAI_clause* text_part_2 (!text_1 joik_jek)? text_1? si_clause? faho_clau= se EOF?

Although this means that a text ending in "word ze&= #39;ei" will be grammatical. Perhaps we can force it to mean "wor= d ze'ei fa'o" by reformulating "fa'o" as an elid= able terminator, so that it is restored like all the other terminators. The= n we can get rid of that additional "si_clause?", since FAhO_clau= se already has a pre_clause.

In conc= lusion, I do think moving "si_clause" from "post_clause"= ; to "pre_clause" is The Right Thing(tm). Opinions?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0

--
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.
--047d7bb04102d5558b0512d83991--