coi jbopre
jbovlaste has been updated to apply camxes morphology when new words are entered. The new morphological classifier, "vlatai.py" is part of the camxes-py Python parser, and replaces "vlatai", which is bundled with the jbofihe parser.
vlatai.py adds two types: "bu-letterals" (previously classified as "cmavo" or "cmavo cluster") and "zei-lujvo" (previously classified as "lujvo"). These new types are subject to camxes parser rules: Invalid constructs such as {bu bu} and {zei zei lujvo} are rejected.
Other "magic words" such as {zo} and {zoi} are not currently supported in combination with {bu} and {zei}. This is an oversight rather than a design choice, so please feel free to file a bug report if you find this is needed.
The 21,940 valsi currently registered in jbovlaste were verified with the new classifier: 21,829 reported no change, 10 were reclassified as bu-letterals, 26 were reclassified as zei-lujvo, 1 was reclassified from fu'ivla to lujvo, and 74 valsi were marked as "obsolete": cmevla (22), fu'ivla (51) and zei-lujvo (1).
Details of the reclassified words can be found here:
https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/47
https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/39
https://github.com/lojban/jbovlaste/issues/40
The new "obsolete" valsi types are currently treated like the "experimental" types in XML and PDF exports: They are marked with a warning.
la gleki raised the issue that some words (e.g. {relmast}) which don't conform to this version of camxes, ought to in fact be valid. xorxes noted that only older versions of the camxes/BPFK morphology prohibit such words.
I checked {relmast} against the Java/Rats! version of camxes which is linked on the "Issues With The Lojban Formal Grammar" page: It was not accepted. It was also not accepted by camxes.js or either the standard or experimental ilmentufa grammars. I also checked python-camxes, but it uses the same version of the Java jar that was described above.
I built a new camxes Java/Rats! jar using the latest morphology on the tiki, and I can confirm that according to this version of the grammar, {relmast} is valid. However, it's not clear whether such a jar is currently distributed anywhere.
Based on all of this, my inclination is to update camxes-py as soon as possible to use the newest BPFK morphology (where "newest" may mean n years old). However, if I do this, it will no longer be in sync with most other implementations of camxes currently distributed. Thoughts, anyone?
Thanks to rlpowell and tene for their assistance in getting the new software installed.
mi'e la mukti mu'o
Based on all of this, my inclination is to update camxes-py as soon as possible to use the newest BPFK morphology (where "newest" may mean n years old). However, if I do this, it will no longer be in sync with most other implementations of camxes currently distributed. Thoughts, anyone?
Thanks to rlpowell and tene for their assistance in getting the new software installed.
mi'e la mukti mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/gJaX8fPV_zc/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
Hmm, okay. So is it that {ibliardo} and {bolrbliardo} are pronounced with a syllabic L, like {.ibl,iardo}/{bol,rbl,iardo}, as opposed to {bli,iardo} with more of a BL cluster?