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

Re: [bpfk] selma'o ZEhEI and PEG

I tried to do this (delete ZEI, add {zei} and {ze'ei} to SI, and move SI from post_clause to pre_clause) but I was unable to complete the last step without introducing left recursion into the pre_clause rule. So it seems easier said than done. I am not an expert in these dark corners of the PEG, though.

Also, one more issue to add to the above list (I still like this idea, though):
(4) Currently {zei} can quote any word on the right, so {coi zei co'o'o'oi} parses. Not sure what this is useful for, but it's in the grammar.

- mu'o mi'e durkavore

On April 4, 2015 at 9:25:22 AM, Jorge Llambías (jjllambias@gmail.com) wrote:

On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-04-03 23:59 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

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.

It'd be ideologically not lujvo but some kind of fu'ivla since the place structure magically comes out of nothing.

Is "kemke'e" ideologically not a lujvo, then? It doesn't matter whether we call it a lujvo or not, "coi zei coi" is now a brivla and with the change it will stop being a brivla. It is obviously a compound too, so not calling it a lujvo seems arbitrary. I'm not sure it's an essential property of lujvo that its place structure has to come out of its components, even if it usually does. 
 
ni'o as for your PEG modifications on zei/ze'ei I need time. I'm not sure if the goal of finishing PEG is close (then I'll try implementing them) or not (and then I probably think of this tool instead).

That woud be good, it looks a lot like this: http://pegjs.org/online
but when I try to paste the camxes-exp.js.peg file in there the page freezes for me, maybe it's too large for it.

As for ze'ei in SI, a few more issues we need to be aware of:

(1) "si" is allowed at the beginning of text, "zei" is not. Maybe we could just disallow "si" there since it doesn't mean anything.

(2) a text can end with "word si". Do we want to allow a text to end with "word ze'ei" as well? This could be solved by either requiring "fa'o", or restoring an elidable "fa'o" there.

(3) multiple "si" work back to multiple words: "da de di si si si do" leaves just "do" standing. Do we want "da de di ze'ei ze'ei ze'ei do" to be just one sumti as well? This would be a change from how "zei" works now. (Not necessarily a bad change.)

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.

--
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.