Re: [bpfk] Improvements to fragments in ilmentufa parser

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 6:54 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

2015-03-28 20:43 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 4:05 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:

sumti_4 = expr:(sumti_5 / relative_clauses / gek sumti gik sumti_4) {return _node("sumti_4", expr);}

This could be dangerous, as it makes "ta prenu poi do sisku" grammatical, but not with the expected meaning.

I don't know what is the expected meaning here.

Something like "ta me lo prenu poi do sisku", a relatively frequent error, I think.

It can be restored to {ta prenu zo'e poi do sisku ke'a} or instead to something like {fasnu fa lo nu ta prenu poi do sisku ke'a} or instead as {lo ta prenu poi do sisku ke'a cu co'e}.

Did you mean "fasnu fa lo nu ta prenu _kei_ poi do sisku ke'a"?
It doesn't matter. This phrase (without {kei}) officially (in yacc) parses as
(fasnu {<fa [lo ({nu <ta [prenu VAU]> KEI} {poi <do [sisku VAU]> KU'O}) KU ]> VAU})

Right, I thought that's what you meant. But you would need an explicit "kei" there if your new sumti rule is in effect. It would no longer be elidable in this case.

Maybe you meant it should be restored to "fasnu fa lo nu ta prenu _ku_ poi do sisku ke'a"? This is another option indeed.

I didn't mean it should be restored to anything. I said making "relative_clauses" a sumti could be weird, and that restoring "ta prenu poi do sisku" to "fasnu fa lo nu ta prenu poi do sisku" would be no restoration at all because you still have "ta prenu poi do sisku" in there. If you make "poi do sisku" a sumti, then "fasnu fa lo nu ta prenu poi do sisku" would no longer parse in the way it parses now, it would parse as (fasnu {<fa [lo ({nu <ta [prenu (poi {do <sisku VAU>} KU'O) VAU]> KEI} KU]> VAU}). In order to get the current parse, either "kei" or "vau" would no longer be elidable.

Although, I'm bad at distinguishing inner and outer relative clauses so maybe I'd prefer {fasnu fa lonu ta prenu ku poi do sisku ke'a}.

Either way, I take it then that the sumti "poi do sisku" would not occupy a numbered place, but it would rather act like a tag or tagged sumti. But that doesn't correspond well with your proposed use of "FA relative-clause".

I started this discussion not to issue any decrees but because few people seem to be working on PEG when it's obvious that it can and should be improved.

I understand. I'm just pointing out my issues with making "relative_clause" a sumti.

Also things lika {da poi prenu ku'o noi melbi".

How is this supposed to parse according to you? I can see it again either as restoring {zo'e} or {fasnu fa lo nu} or as {lo da poi prenu ku'o noi ke'a melbi cu co'e}.

With your proposed sumti rule, I would understand it as two sumti. I'm saying that's confusing, because it looks like a single sumti with two relative clauses.

I don't insist on restoring {noi melbi} into {zo'e noi melbi}, but I would never guess that it is {zi'e} that is omitted here.
If no one including me (oh well, only two people here) like {broda noi melbi} as {broda zo'e noi mo} then let's think this option is rejected.

Now I'm getting confused again, because you seem to be saying that "noi melbi"="zo'e noi melbi" does occupy a numbered place. But this is contrary to what you were saying in the previous example.

However, I would like it to be restored to {lo broda noi melbi}. If people make mistakes it's because how they learnt or assumed something incorrectly from existing books.

What is "it"? What would be restored to "lo broda noi melbi"? Not "broda noi melbi", I suppose.

An English phrase "Does which is beautiful" is {[fasnu fa lo nu] zukte noi melbi} or {[fasnu fa lo nu] zukte ku noi melbi}.

I don't understand what you meant there.

If relying on English (and some other European languages) doesn't matter here at all then I can see only one possible explanation of this common mistake: people have been learning gismu from their glosswords incorrectly assuming that gismu may mean nouns whereas they never mean nouns but predicates or (very roughly) verbs. {i mlatu} never means "a cat" but "It is a cat".

Partly true, but notice that even if you do understand that "mlatu" means "is-a-cat", you could still think that "ta mlatu poi mi nelci" was "that is-a-cat that-I-like", where "that-I-like" works like a tanru modifier on "is-a-cat", much like you could say "ta mlatu co blabi", "that is-a-cat of-type-is-white".

As for you suggestion it's a continuation of the official {lo noi pendo ja'a melbi cu co'e} so it requires separate commits (do you have ideas where to patch the peg, btw?)

Maybe something like:
sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier sumti / quantifier? selbri? relative-clauses?
Are you able to test this suggestion? I tried, it didn't work for me.

I probably should be able to test it with the site I mentioned earlier, with some work. I'm not sure that it's a high priority for me at this point. Which case did it fail with?

I haven't thought out all the ramifications, but this should allow things like "ro poi broda gi'e brode cu brodi" and "lo ci cu broda".

I can see now that what I proposed wouldn't work for "ro poi broda gi'e brode cu brodi" (but maybe yes for "ro lo poi ...". I'm not sure I see why it wouldn't work for "lo ci cu broda".

Maybe adding this modification:

  sumti-5 <- quantifier? sumti-6 relative-clauses? / quantifier selbri? KU-clause? free* relative-clauses?

would help with the "ro poi" case. But I'm just throwing ideas here, not making any serious proposal at this point.

la xalbo suggested having a list of test sentences so that we can quickly test whether some change affects any reference test sentences (it shouldn't affect to preserve or even increase backward compatibility).

Yes, clearly any changes need to be thoroughly tested before being approved. Making tanru-unit elidable would make most of this sumti-tail issue moot though, since in that case the selbri in sumti-tail and anywhere else would automatically be elidable as well. One problem I can see with that would be the dangling "co", "cei", "bo" and tanru connectives that would then be allowed.

mu'o mi'e xorxes