Received: from mail-ob0-f192.google.com ([209.85.214.192]:33888) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1YeCLt-0002pM-A9; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:54:25 -0700 Received: by obcwm4 with SMTP id wm4sf9769478obc.1; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:54:15 -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=MO95M6aXy4yqmoyMySoXw7j+5bOLJzkgJ+3P3dLwO48=; b=MGDn3Q3gw48lmQNQkS+W5gI077s1+U7CbjSe7L5RxGl9o6GNvo27IiT7h4hZiSgXgy qdu0kAtR9V8rIkJ9nKgwIKnbEzV1hcfAeC+Sl0hv3CL8Y9cE1horiBJkk6pc23lqeS61 O3C5EVRGRFa5LRyY7RNje+Htj9kahRHYznKDbpAvWOifyx3PhcuesSxAAr2SN9ww7UYg gMUpQcIxR1VMIWzpw/XwdgOw2e+Md+gCJYaveRzIeblM8e/YdJGBRG4IaKTj3exM+h/T Zwq4BcWZtxFeZK8CcMFuK0GXmWmjcoxWOHpWY0IBb0WgAis57UvqbWESDkrjpnQd2SMF DDgQ== 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=MO95M6aXy4yqmoyMySoXw7j+5bOLJzkgJ+3P3dLwO48=; b=gQDbMZ48w6x/PTcZWyXPnZzFZBiO1s+sBk4Q47DWmcCC0+Ui2vCDr3ON9d7bqh/bQn Slm5DtYqjdBMVReR8oyDMeyKhE2Q7i5IHzi4pZ9NQpGR5VKIHhq0jojOKgo+YaRYMx1o TDaM/ZDJkpFzb59jLWtuy+GH1oExHKErukVtQn6JGTNP1/gdXLFGkKs9AOTB27JLmu28 kGGjMRHNTnkqsG1REeoxPS4a2wQkEIXJNuBuIxZtdGtGShR1h1OSFXTKQgFFDbiFNM12 SYI2ThprJQgHG6lB9e5nU/rINJOkpI3kOiWeLt+8pNQzjCTaEhOdr9Yg3gLgwalGS2RB pcaQ== X-Received: by 10.50.35.162 with SMTP id i2mr507438igj.4.1428108855252; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:54:15 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.107.4.201 with SMTP id 192ls496455ioe.102.gmail; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:54:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.51.67 with SMTP id i3mr111583igo.15.1428108854885; Fri, 03 Apr 2015 17:54:14 -0700 (PDT) Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 17:54:13 -0700 (PDT) From: guskant To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: References: <87a8631e-1155-4a74-a1c4-47c79a5fe96f@googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: [bpfk] selma'o ZEhEI and PEG MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_1495_2101319969.1428108853522" 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: 10531 ------=_Part_1495_2101319969.1428108853522 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_1496_1939879221.1428108853530" ------=_Part_1496_1939879221.1428108853530 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le samedi 4 avril 2015 05:59:36 UTC+9, xorxes a =C3=A9crit : > > 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= =20 >> glued together with {zei} determines its grammar? >> Thus, {panpi zei coi} will become a vocative but {coi zei panpi} will be= =20 >> 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=20 > ZEhEI. > (2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, given that "ze'ei" will then cover most of its= =20 > uses. > (3) replace "ze'ei" with "zei", since it would be no longer in use.=20 > > We don't have (1) working properly yet, so (2) and (3) are premature, but= =20 > I would be in favor of (2) and (3) once (1) is working properly.=20 > > I'm not sure what {coi zei coi} could mean as a brivla and what would it= =20 >> be its place structure. >> > > Like any lujvo, it could be defined as anything, it could mean "x1 says= =20 > 'hi!' to x2", for example. In actual usage, most of the uses of "zei" are= =20 > with a brivla as the second word, so I don't think it would be a great lo= ss=20 > to restrict zei-compounds to only be brivla when the last element is a=20 > brivla. > > As for (1), I think making use of selma'o SI is the best option, but=20 > si_clause has to be moved from post_clause to pre_clause so that the=20 > SI-tagged word attaches to the word that follows, not the one that=20 > precedes, as it does now: > > post_clause =3D spaces? indicators* > > pre_clause =3D BAhE_clause? si_clause? > > (In fact, I think "spaces?" should be absorbed by "post_word", not by=20 > "post_clause", since spaces don't really belong to this level of the=20 > 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= =20 > anything, but perhaps they need to be restored.) > > Additionally, we need to eliminate "intro_si_clause", which is no longer= =20 > needed, but we have to replace it with a final "si_clause" for the case= =20 > when "si" is not followed by anything.=20 > > Something like this: > > text =3D intro_null NAI_clause* text_part_2 (!text_1 joik_jek)? text_1?= =20 > si_clause? faho_clause EOF? > > Although this means that a text ending in "word ze'ei" will be=20 > grammatical. Perhaps we can force it to mean "word ze'ei fa'o" by=20 > reformulating "fa'o" as an elidable terminator, so that it is restored li= ke=20 > all the other terminators. Then we can get rid of that additional=20 > "si_clause?", since FAhO_clause already has a pre_clause. > > In conclusion, I do think moving "si_clause" from "post_clause" to=20 > "pre_clause" is The Right Thing(tm). Opinions? > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > =20 > I prefer=20 (1)-1. implementing "ze'ei" as a member of SI, with moving "si_clause"=20 from "post_clause" to "pre_clause", and also doing both (2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, and (3) replace "ze'ei" with "zei". mu'o mi'e guskant=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_1496_1939879221.1428108853530 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le samedi 4 avril 2015 05:59:36 UTC+9, xorxes a = =C3=A9crit :
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gleki A= rxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> 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 l= east one usage of {ze'ei}.

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

(1) impl= ement "ze'ei", either as a member of SI or in its own selma'o ZEhEI.
<= div>(2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, given that "ze'ei" will then cover most of i= ts uses.
(3) replace "ze'ei" with "zei", since it would be no lon= ger in use. 

We don't have (1) working proper= ly 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 brivl= a 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 g= reat loss to restrict zei-compounds to only be brivla when the last element= is a brivla.

As for (1), I think making use of se= lma'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 =3D spaces? ind= icators*

pre_clause =3D BAhE_clause? si_clause?

(In fact, I think "spaces?" should be absorbed by "p= ost_word", not by "post_clause", since spaces don't really belong to this l= evel of the grammar, so "post_clause" should only absorb indicators and fre= e.)

(I removed the "!BU_clause !ZEI_= clause" too because I don't think they do anything, but perhaps they need t= o be restored.)

Additionally, we need to eliminate= "intro_si_clause", which is no longer needed, but we have to replace it wi= th a final "si_clause" for the case when "si" is not followed by anything.&= nbsp;

Something like this:

text =3D 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 el= idable terminator, so that it is restored like all the other terminators. T= hen we can get rid of that additional "si_clause?", since FAhO_clause alrea= dy has a pre_clause.

In conclusion, = I do think moving "si_clause" from "post_clause" to "pre_clause" is The Rig= ht Thing(tm). Opinions?

mu'o mi'e xorxes
   


I prefer 

(1)-1. impleme= nting "ze'ei" as a member of SI,  with moving "si_clause" from "post_c= lause" to "pre_clause",

and also doing both
<= div>
(2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, and
(3) replace "ze= 'ei" with "zei".

mu'o mi'e guskant 

--
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_1496_1939879221.1428108853530-- ------=_Part_1495_2101319969.1428108853522--