Re: [bpfk] Proposal: sumti must always be tagged with "tag" even if it's elidible.

Subject: Re: [bpfk] Proposal: sumti must always be tagged with "tag" even if it's elidible.

From: Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>

Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2015 20:16:15 -0300

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=4YyMVrWrRoINsPz8GicmJZepc0OkQlhLdOnE6hdA9mc=; b=bQNI9BRKfOOdMZwwwsynov/5bA7NMgaCclNeTBTD8ia7Cbk1HgYX97wz64TaP6rovS yLLI8n97wBeuEup9+vMt/BMe2y2xlIpzfRoWO8rloUodat8UiyLBvnheXAwT4NzyqNlC S918J836OB7rKvKZdKrHNGUtQA1vVo4BgYxZG8vN6mDFt9rgar7/7jl1OvsSut+xn0h8 e+Spm3dOkhPfm2xjijUeN63Ms8jiy4Ez51vyC6oa7uTfFCCg9ehNuf+GsBZ1yIj1/b5W u+ql18eKfG5k+3eRSUB96Z0OkgvpH1Tcs1I4jjD1js2ht+uuTl2wlsTzU/wDGaP0IxlQ +dLw==

In-reply-to: <5523DFCA.40002@gmail.com>

List-archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-lis>

List-help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:bpfk-list+help@googlegroups.com>

List-id: <bpfk-list.googlegroups.com>

List-post: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/post>, <mailto:bpfk-list@googlegroups.com>

List-subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>, <mailto:bpfk-list+subscribe@googlegroups.com>

List-unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+972099695765+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>, <http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list/subscribe>

Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com

References: <CAO7bV+gSSGpnQUG=P08yPspQqPRmbZrxH6jxvAFiabjdqfhCeg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7tK2ckRDgQodpmDWgB7dHpKoHxLh=qDREYD9UENKq4SYSuxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAO7bV+js08A6K6Q_LvmOfMCRui=8p5a3rbk9VhxtJvMbLk9RXg@mail.gmail.com> <5523DFCA.40002@gmail.com>

Reply-to: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com

Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com

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

bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

bpfk-list@googlegroups.com

http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list

https://groups.google.com/d/optout