Internal grammar of UI, NAI and CAI

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Proposal.

In simple words the structure of attitudinal is proposed as

((UI1 ROhA*) DAI*)+

It means that {ro'a} series modify UI1 particles but not modify each other (like if they were connected using {je}). After that {dai} follow (again as if connected using {je} between themselves).

The problem is that a string of DAI should be parsed from right to left:

([UI1 DAI] DAI)

- here the second DAI wraps UI1 DAI, the first DAI wraps (i.e applies itself to) UI1.

PEG parses from left to right hence I had to make the following rule:

loi_DAI_rule = (DAI loi_DAI_rule?)

i.e. recursion is made to the right which isn't very correct but probably unavoidable given the current formal grammar. We could hardcode only up to two DAI but what if we need more?

Also each of UI1, ROhA, DAI can be modified with NAI/CAI that in their turn can modify each other ({nai sai} is not the same as {sai nai}).

In other words, UI/NAI/CAI are split into 4 groups:

1. interjections like UI1.

2. interjection categorizers like {ro'a}

3. interjection rotators like {dai}

4. right scalers like NAI and CAI

Other attitudinals can go into one of these new series. This scheme doesn't show all of them for simplicity. E.g. probably all {sei}-clauses should go to the 1. group.

NAI/CAI (right scalers) don't belong to interjections, they don't have illocutionary force, nor are they comments to text. Like NAhE (left scalers) they operate with scales although modify constructs marked to the left of them. Unlike left scalers they also modify interjections, categorizers and rotators but that's because they are so powerful. Outside 1.,2.,3. right scalers modify sumtcita.

Note also that PEG previously allowed indicators (i.e. UI) in post-clause of almost all constructs. This can make sense but not for UI themselves since we don't want recursive embedding here. When constructs from 1,2,3,4 need to modify each other we handle this specially.

Also according to this proposal NAI has an homophonic selmaho (where all its members are also homophones) which is used as right connective negator, e.g. {je nai}. This second NAI is to be treated separately in the grammar, is to create different nodes in the parse tree, obviously it can't be specified in post-clause of any construct. Instead, it is to be limited to the rules specifying connectives. The same is for NA which has an homophonic selmaho used as left connective negator.

E.g. there should be a clear difference between parsing

{ge nai ui} and {ge ui nai}.

In the first case it's {(ge nai) ui}, in the second it's {ge (ui nai)}.

In the first case {nai} is a part of the connective that has no relation to attitudinals.

In the second case the connective is {ge} which is then modified by {ui nai} attutidinal.

It would make little sense in parsing the first as {ge (nai ui)} since we probably don't want to mark only {nai} part (and if we did how could we mark {ge} in {ge nai} using {uinai}? hint: {fu'e ... fu'o} won't help unless further fixed). It's better to apply attitudinals to {ge nai} as a whole.

Another proposal is to allow right scalers for sumti and tanru units (selbrisle) too, where they will work as 

sai ~=> barda lo ka

ru'e ~=> cmalu lo ka

or more correctly increase/decrease the average value measured.

So {pusaiku} will be something like {puzuku}.

So {coi nai ui lo mo ku nai ui} would parse as [{<coi nai> ui} {<(¹lo mo ku¹) nai> ui} DOhU]

The current implementation of these two proposals can be tested at

http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/altatufa-stodi.html

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2015-07-20 19:18 GMT+03:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>:

It means that {ro'a} series modify UI1 particles but not modify each other (like if they were connected using {je}). After that {dai} follow (again as if connected using {je} between themselves).

Clarification. Obviously, {dai} do modify each other but as mentioned in the next sentence they must do that from right to the left which is currently unavailable hence this ugly representation.

[Alex Burka]

This is nice. I wonder if we could do a little study of UI-strings in the corpus to see if this breaks any widely used patterns. Also, I would be happy if we added toi'e/toi'o or a similar mechanism.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2015-07-22 10:24 GMT+03:00 Alex Burka <dur...@gmail.com>:

Also, I would be happy if we added toi'e/toi'o or a similar mechanism.

I don't see why we need them. UI are primitives, no need to clone the whole grammar of Lojban using attitudinals.

[Alex Burka]

Yes I definitely agree. However it's sometimes useful to override the default grouping, especially with an explicit internal grammar like this. But I'm fine leaving toi'e/toi'o to wallow in experimental-land for a while longer :)

[Spheniscine (la zipcpi)]

-  zo'o ko citka ta

I think this is wrong if we expand {ko} into {do ko'oi}. Then we get two attitudinals not connected to each other. Hence the meaning would be "I state that you eat it (kidding). [Please], eat it!"

Hm this seems difficult. My opinion is that the elided attitudinal before {zo'o} is an elliptical illocution that *usually* is {ju'a} (statement/assertion), but {ko} then overrides that with {ko'oi} (imperative/hortative).

[Spheniscine (la zipcpi)]

Similarly, any question word will make the illocutionary mode a question ({pau}... maybe {paucau'i}, since often rhetorical questions are unmarked)

[Spheniscine (la zipcpi)]

It is difficult to represent that elliptical illocution though. Either {ge'e} can represent an illocution or evidential as well, which makes it extremely vague, or it can only express UI1-type emotions, in which case it isn't useful here. On the other hand, there may not be enough justification to create a cmavo to represent it.

Or perhaps we could just take a page from Curtis and create a ridiculously long cmavo so as to not take up space that we might want to actually use, e.g. {ju'a'o'e} :p