[lojban] Re: experimental cmavo in lojgloss.

[Arnt Richard Johansen <arj@nvg.org>]

On Sun, Nov 02, 2008 at 11:28:15PM -0600, Chris Capel wrote:
> I'm wondering how to handle experimental cmavo in Lojgloss. As I see
> it, they probably fall into at least two catogories.
> 
> 1) Drops right into an existing selma'o, like BAI.
> 2) Constitutes its own selma'o.
> 
> 1 could be handled pretty straightforwardly without having to change
> the parser code, just using some configuration. But 2 would probably
> be more difficult to handle. At the extreme it would require changing
> the grammar and recompiling the parser. It'd be nice to avoid that. So
> how common is case 2?

Depends on how forgiving you want to make the parser. The official parser just assumes that all unknown cmavo are UI. This will often result in parse failures, but what have you. Camxes (the candidate for the next official parser) does not recognize experimental cmavo at all.

One major problem with trying to parse experimental cmavo is that they are very ad-hoc. Often, someone will suggest that some new kind of cmavo is necessary/would be nice, and then grab an arbitrary cmavo form from experimental space (xVV*/CVV+'+V*) without checking if someone else have suggested the same cmavo with a completely different use.

As for how common case 2 is - depends on how you count. My educated guess is that new cmavo proposals are about 50/50 additions to existing selma'o and completely new functions. But if you count usages of cmavo, not just the cmavo, the case where you need new rules to parse the text is probably in the majority. For instance, the lo'ai/sa'ai/le'ai construct for correcting mistakes is very common on IRC these days.

Another point (or, if you like, a stern warning): if you decide you want to handle experimental cmavo and constructs, please flag them as such, prominently. A glosser/parser is a tool that people not only use to make sense of other people's texts, but also to check if their own prose is correct. If they try to use experimental cmavo, they need to know that their Lojban is not quite kosher, and might not be understood by those who aren't down with the latest lingo.

-- 
Arnt Richard Johansen                                http://arj.nvg.org/
Confusion among -ate ~ -ant pairs is even more prominate, since both
are legitimant suffixes. --Adam Albright


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.