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 20:30:12 -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=ZVdgd9l7hswXf6KEtBGvNVIVRXqYdzznLfQQ4LcDz30=; b=w+65tYJcuUeutAxz51j7oAGhpBBr1MpqpL5cmncltQ9Exo4xf+QpX/+Dp9QyA79ixz DVivglFjrZ9YnuYfWxZDqVdGvaggWOamIRkJ+CkR/+SLqOqC6qRkohV6IjdNIVoyqot2 ts/oij7BoKtz+ln/jKKdvjk3fqYInwzymNivCPx48ay5LbZms5YHMPmXidKq+2aXgyja xXCGjOpgN2bOi127jiUcbZUow0VB7TK4cqI5w0ooj68r5T7ZdHY7z4h8FgCJR/0PkAyg 8QnMAF44zVKKhSMe3FbhvYcA/sjj3KV39CkCY7jMs47H79vLveh6ZinJHLHTl/0IwhOO BKUg==

In-reply-to: <CAO7bV+js08A6K6Q_LvmOfMCRui=8p5a3rbk9VhxtJvMbLk9RXg@mail.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>

Reply-to: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com

Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com

On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

2015-04-07 1:52 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

abs_tag_term =
!gek tag !selbri !gek_sentence (sumti / joik_ek sumti_3 / KU_elidible)
/ !gek (tag / FA_elidible) !selbri !gek_sentence sumti
/ !gek sumti CO_clause tag
/ NA_clause KU_clause
/ !selbri !gek_sentence !ek !joik_jek !gihek NA_clause KU_elidible
/ SOI_clause subsentence

Can you give some motivation for the "tag joik_ek sumti_3" term? No "FA joik_ek sumti_3" to go with it?
...
Thus FA is a tense modal now.

I see. What about the first question, how do we interpret "bai .e do"? Is it "bai [zo'e] .e do"?

"NA_clause KU_clause" seems unnecessary, since it doesn't capture anything that wouldn't be captured by "!selbri !gek_sentence !ek !joik_jek !gihek NA_clause KU_elidible" does it? Same goes for the first "sumti", it doesn't catch anything that wouldn't be caught by the second one.

Which two sumti ? In front of tag and then in front of FA_elidible?

Yes (do you really think of the right side of a rule as the "front"?)

The first "sumti" is not needed, just as the "NA_clause KU_clause". They don't contribute anything.

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