[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] selma'o ZEhEI and PEG

On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@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 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.