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

[Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

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

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 7:45 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

So this is what I propose:

abs_term_1 = expr:(abs_tag_term / termset) {return _node("abs_term_1", expr);}

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

Let me see if I can understand that: 

 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 

 

Well, for FA_elidible it can be just  " !gek FA_elidible sumti / "

although right now I don't why gek is disallowed.

What does "abs_" stand for? Is it really necessary to have two parallel sets of term rules?

Sorry, not me made these modifications.

 

Can you give some motivation for the "tag joik_ek sumti_3" term? No "FA joik_ek sumti_3" to go with it?

I think this is the answer:

tag = expr:(tense_modal (joik_jek tense_modal)*) {return _node("tag", expr); }

tense_modal = expr:((NAhE_clause? SE_clause? 

(BAI_clause / CAhA_clause / CUhE_clause / KI_clause / ZI_clause / PU_clause / VA_clause / MOhI_clause? FAhA_clause / ZEhA_clause / VEhA_clause / VIhA_clause / FEhE_clause? ( VEI_clause mex VEhO_elidible / number ) ROI_clause / FEhE_clause? TAhE_clause / FEhE_clause? ZAhO_clause / FIhO_clause free* selbri FEhU_elidible / FA_clause) free*)+) {return _node("tense_modal", expr); }

Thus FA is a tense modal now.

 

Also you allow "CO tag" but no "CO FA"? I think you need the CO rule to go before the FA_elidible rule, or it will never be reached.

right

 

 "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? 

What does the SOI term mean? Is there a new proposed meaning for "soi"? Is it something like "lo poi'i"? 

BTW, are there any plans to get rid of SA, or are people still in love with it? It makes the grammar so much harder to read.

I don't really have any useful comments at this point because I'm still not up to speed with all the changes in this grammar.

if i can do anything on technical side to help you pls let me know.

 

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.