Re: [bpfk] Improvements to fragments in ilmentufa parser

2015-03-28 1:21 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>:

On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-03-27 11:00 GMT+03:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>:

What methods do you use or want to make the development process happen faster?
A web tool that would allow to insert a complete PEG file, compile it and test it online?

I used this one when debugging the morphology recently: http://pegjs.org/online

If you are satisfied with it then okay. If not please let us know what would you like to have so that we accelerate the development.

A presentation of the grammar without the _javascript_ would make it much more readable for me.

You mean you don't like those "expr:(" ? For me it's a very minor issue. A larger one might be if you don't have an opportunity to input a peg and test sentences and get output anytime you want. E.g. if you can't install something you may ask Robin to give you access to la vrici server and then using tty.js get web access to ssh and then node.js and camxes.js. Let me know of any difficulties.

Well, really you need to tell me _javascript_ litter really stops you from working on PEG. Tastes differ, if it stops you I'll think what can be done.

Also, a grammar without SA is much more readable than one with SA. I find the SA-rules extremely annoying.

bridi-tail-3 <- selbri? tail-terms / gek-sentence

Hard for me to determine what is the cause but this breaks {mi zo'u mi mo}.

Probably because it thinks that prenex is a selbri.

Adding !ZOhU-clause at the end of tail-terms might fix that:

tail-terms <- terms? VAU-clause? free* !ZOhU-clause

Looks like it worked out. Although, I don't like using "selbri?" I used "( selbri / GOhA_elidible)" which gives prettier results.

What are the minimal requirements to restore a bridi if not from terms or from bridi_tail ? Probably it can be restored from isolated {i} or {ni'o} but since this already works, then other types of restoration should be discussed separately since they don't touch anything here.

Other than fragments, I think everything else in a text is either a sentence, a sentence connective

Connectives as replies to {ji} questions are interesting. I suppose current camxes.js could be cured to support that. Do you have an algorithm in mind on how to restore such sentences? Obviously {zo'e je zo'e cu co'e} is not a good restoration. I'd like copying sentences with {ji} and replacing {ji} with connectives. This also requires working with {go'i}.

- do ji mi nelci

- e = > do e mi nelci

- xu do nelci

- go'i => mi nelci

A: - mi nelci

B: - go'i ra'o => {mi nelci} or {by nelci} or {by cusku lo se du'u by. nelci}

Any other test sentences?

, or the initial indicators, free modifiers, and the strange initial bare cmevla. I think only fragments require "restoration".

2. We could also add this if "fragment" is removed from the grammar:

tanru_unit_1 = tanru_unit_2 linkargs? / linkargs? tanru_unit_2 / GOhA_elidible linkargs

This makes {i be mi} parse as (i [CU {COhE <be mi BEhO>} VAU])

If you're going to do that, why put it in tanru-unit-1 and not in tanru-unit-2?

If you allow (i [CU {COhE <be mi BEhO>} VAU]), why not (i [CU {na'e <COhE>} VAU]), or (i [CU {jai <COhE>} VAU]) for example?

Probably yes, but only if we assume interpretation a) i.e. not how selpa'i used them.