Re: [bpfk] Improvements to fragments in ilmentufa parser

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

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

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

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, 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?

However, selpa'i's examples don't work here.

Should {noi mo} a). be restored into {noi mo cu co'e}

I missed the part where "noi mo cu co'e" became grammatical.

implying {fa xi xo'e zo'e noi mo cu co'e} or b). should it instead be considered a continuation of the previous clause said by another speaker like with selpa'i's example with {be ma}?

I would have said to "zo'e noi mo cu co'e"

Both solutions seem reasonable. Maybe take option b). and treat a discourse split between several people as one sentence with special FUhE .. FUhO markers?

mi viska lo pendo FUhE [B asks] be ma [FUhO]
mi viska lo pendo FUhE [B asks] noi mo [FUhO]

A: - I see a friend.
B: - Of whom?

A: - I see a friend.
B: - Who does what?

This would reformulate fragments as parts of discourse so that we can remove them from the grammar. Of course, this would require somehow preparing existing texts by marking them with those FUhE ... FUhO so that we can parse them.

It depends on how you define "text". Is a dialogue one text, or a succession of texts? The usual take is that it's a succession of texts, since otherwise a lot of lojban dialogues that seem to parse would not parse. For example the irc logs

I also allowed relative clauses in sumti without their heads. If fragments are removed from the grammar then similar things can be useful:

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

This results in {fa noi pendo mi cu melbi} (in fact it may even make {be} useless except when used stylistically).

I think it's safer to require a "lo" for bare relative clauses: "lo noi pendo cu melbi" (this was also discussed as a good alternative to "poi'i" in many cases).

At some point there was talk of making the selbri of a sumti-tail elidable as well, so that "lo ku" would be a valid sumti.

I almost never use {ku} in this sense (LE-terminator). Besides, some people think that {cu} should mark the beginning of a bridi tail. In this case I don't understand how to treat {lo cu broda}. Should it be {lo COhE KU cu broda} or {lo cu broda KU CU COhE} ?

Since a bridi-tail is not part of a sumti-tail, it can only be the first.

mu'o mi'e xorxes