[lojban] Re: Annotated PEG grammar

["Stephen Pollei" <stephen.pollei@gmail.com>]

On 11/15/08, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 5:45 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
>  > http://pdf23ds.net/lojban/Annotated%20Grammar.html

>  > Here's a very unfinished version of an annotated grammar. Anybody want
>  > to see it finished?
> I wouldn't mind seeing the annotations finished

<aol>me too</aol>

> I think that's a
>  useful thing to have, but what I would really want is seeing the rules
>  cleaned up, including some minor adjustments to the grammar.  This
>  grammar is not official yet so we do have some room to tinker.

Yes I think that maybe making sure that the grammar can handle things
like the magic words in a way most can agree on would be great.
http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Magic+Words&bl
I'm not sure what other proposed changes might need a tiny bit of tweaking.

Also there might be minor things that could be changed that don't
really change things much.
{paragraph <- (statement / fragment) (I !jek !joik !joik-jek free*
(statement / fragment)?)*}
could be changed to
{paragraph <- (statement / fragment) (I  !joik-jek free* (statement /
fragment)?)*}
or {paragraph <- (statement / fragment) (I !jek !joik  free*
(statement / fragment)?)*} .

given {joik-jek <- joik free* / jek free*} it's slightly redundant.

>
>  For example, why is joik-jek up there in the text rule instead of
>  being a fragment?

I can't really speak to Jorge Llambías's suggestions about fragments.
It seems sensible to me, but I lack the experience and knowlege to
really evaluate his suggestion properly.

>
>  BTW, the comment about free* and UI is not exactly rght. In fact UI is
>  not an instance of free, and can occur in a few more places than
>  free*. For example, UI can occur between CMENE and free can't. That's
>  another thing that should be changed, free should be able to appear
>  anywhere that it doesn't cause a problem.

"text-part-2" , "sumti-6" , and "free" all have CMENE+ rules and there
is a indicators rule that might be appropriate or not.
    indicators <- FUhE? indicator+
    indicator <- ((UI / CAI) NAI? / DAhO / FUhO) !BU
If you created a rule like:
names <- CMENE+ indicators? (CMENE+ indicators?)*
and then used "names" instead of "CMENE+" inside those three rules
would that be close to what you suggest?

names <- (CMENE+ indicators / )* CMENE+
hmm you did say between, not sure if you can do a zero-width match like that.

text-part-2 <- (CMENE+ / indicators?) free*
sumti-6 <- ... / LA free* relatives? CMENE+ free* / ...
free <- ... / vocative relatives? CMENE+ free* relatives? DOhU? / ...

text-part-2 <- (names / indicators)? free*
sumti-6 <- ... / LA free* relatives? names free* / ...
free <- ... / vocative relatives? names free* relatives? DOhU? / ...

Hmm now that I look at it free also doesn't seem to list UI either.

post-clause <- spaces? si-clause? !ZEI-clause !BU-clause indicators*
that probably does much of the UI usage soak up.

CMENE-clause <- CMENE-pre CMENE-post
CMENE-pre <- pre-clause CMENE spaces?
CMENE-post <- post-clause
SPACE CMENE-no-SA-handling <- pre-clause CMENE post-clause

And it looks like the CMENE stuff already might soak up indicators. Not sure.


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.