A bug in jboske with FA?

[la gleki]

According to http://dag.github.com/cll/9/3/ , "What if some sumti have FA tags and others do not? The rule is that after a FA-tagged sumti, any sumti following it occupy the places numerically succeeding it, subject to the proviso that an already-filled place is skipped:"

Now let's open jboski and enter two jufra.

klama fi lo zarci lo zdani

[1<<2klama
go-ing>>2 (3[klama3 (origin(s))
:] fi
  lo
any/some zarci
trading place(s))3 (4[klama4 (route(s))
:] lo
any/some zdani
home(s))4]1

[₁«₂klama go-ing»₂ (₃[klama3 (origin(s)) :] fi lo any/some zarci trading place(s))₃ (₄[klama4 (route(s)) :] lo any/some zdani home(s))₄]₁ 

Well, ok. But now let's enter

fi lo zarci cu klama lo zdani

and we get 

[1(2[klama3 (origin(s))
:] fi
  lo
any/some zarci
trading place(s))2
cu
is/does <<3klama
go-ing>>3 (4[klama2 (destination(s))
:] lo
any/some zdani
home(s))4]1

[₁(₂[klama3 (origin(s)) :] fi lo any/some zarci trading place(s))₂ cu is/does «₃klama go-ing»₃ (₄[klama2 (destination(s)) :] lo any/some zdanihome(s))₄]₁ 

lo zdani magically turned from klama4 to klama2?

Are there any bug-free parsers?

Are there any plans on a glossing camxes or at least a parser that can show the hierarchy inside any jufra?

[Jacob Errington]

Bug or feature?

To be honest, it would be a pretty neat hack to be able to say {.i mi fi do cusku lu coi .i do melbi} without the {fe} after {cusku}.

This is clearly due to the rule mandating that after the selbri, the numbered place counting begins at two, even if there are no bridi-head sumti.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/-/ljKw6MjYGX4J.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.

[la .lindar.]

That's not what the actual grammar is, though. It continues where you left off. There's good reason for that.