selma'o ZEhEI and PEG

64 views
Skip to first unread message

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Mar 31, 2015, 7:45:05 PM3/31/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com

gleki asked about incorporating selma'o ZEhEI to PEG and I said it would require modifying lots and lots of rules, basically all the selma'o rules. But maybe not.

I was thinking of ZEhEI as being similar to ZEI, but that's probably not the best way to think about it. ZEhEI is actually much more like BU. The only difference is that instead of creating something like BY, it creates something like BAhE. So we only need to do for ZEhEI wrt to BAhE what we do for BU wrt to BY.

This is still not trivial, because BU interacts with ZEI in weird ways, and now we'd be adding a third ingredient into the mix, which makes it all even more messy. But the required modifications would probably look something like this:

zehei-clause <- pre-clause zehei-clause-no-pre
zehei-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zehei-tail? zei-tail / zehei-tail? bu-tail)* zehei-tail post-clause
zei-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zei-tail? bu-tail / zei-tail? zehei-tail)* zei-tail post-clause

bu-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (bu-tail? zei-tail / bu-tail? zehei-tail)* bu-tail post-clause
zehei-tail <- ZEhEI-clause+
pre-zei-bu <- (!ZEhEI-clause !BU-clause !ZEI-clause !SI-clause !SA-clause !SU-clause !FAhO-clause any-word-SA-handling) si-clause?
;         turns any word into a BAhE modifier 
ZEhEI-clause <- ZEhEI-pre ZEhEI-post
ZEhEI-pre <- pre-clause ZEhEI spaces?
ZEhEI-post <- spaces?
;         next word intensifier 
BAhE-clause <- (BAhE-pre BAhE-post)+ / zehei-clause+
BAhE-pre <- BAhE spaces?
BAhE-post <- si-clause? !ZEI-clause !BU-clause !ZEhEI-clause
I haven't tested any of this, and it may require further tweaking, but that's the general idea. It may also be necessary to add !ZEhEI-clause wherever there's a !ZEI-clause !BU-clause, but I suspect many of those are actually redundant.
mu'o mi'e xorxes

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 2:24:08 AM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
That still adds a lot of strings to the grammar.
Can you think of a better way with a different grammar that will allow us to glue semantics from one word and grammar from another word?

--
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.

guskant

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 4:59:14 AM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le mercredi 1 avril 2015 15:24:08 UTC+9, la gleki a écrit :
That still adds a lot of strings to the grammar.
Can you think of a better way with a different grammar that will allow us to glue semantics from one word and grammar from another word?

2015-04-01 2:45 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

gleki asked about incorporating selma'o ZEhEI to PEG and I said it would require modifying lots and lots of rules, basically all the selma'o rules. But maybe not.

I was thinking of ZEhEI as being similar to ZEI, but that's probably not the best way to think about it. ZEhEI is actually much more like BU. The only difference is that instead of creating something like BY, it creates something like BAhE. So we only need to do for ZEhEI wrt to BAhE what we do for BU wrt to BY.

This is still not trivial, because BU interacts with ZEI in weird ways, and now we'd be adding a third ingredient into the mix, which makes it all even more messy. But the required modifications would probably look something like this:

zehei-clause <- pre-clause zehei-clause-no-pre
zehei-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zehei-tail? zei-tail / zehei-tail? bu-tail)* zehei-tail post-clause
zei-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (zei-tail? bu-tail / zei-tail? zehei-tail)* zei-tail post-clause

bu-clause-no-pre <- pre-zei-bu (bu-tail? zei-tail / bu-tail? zehei-tail)* bu-tail post-clause
zehei-tail <- ZEhEI-clause+
pre-zei-bu <- (!ZEhEI-clause !BU-clause !ZEI-clause !SI-clause !SA-clause !SU-clause !FAhO-clause any-word-SA-handling) si-clause?
;         turns any word into a BAhE modifier 
ZEhEI-clause <- ZEhEI-pre ZEhEI-post
ZEhEI-pre <- pre-clause ZEhEI spaces?
ZEhEI-post <- spaces?
;         next word intensifier 
BAhE-clause <- (BAhE-pre BAhE-post)+ / zehei-clause+
BAhE-pre <- BAhE spaces?
BAhE-post <- si-clause? !ZEI-clause !BU-clause !ZEhEI-clause
I haven't tested any of this, and it may require further tweaking, but that's the general idea. It may also be necessary to add !ZEhEI-clause wherever there's a !ZEI-clause !BU-clause, but I suspect many of those are actually redundant.
mu'o mi'e xorxes


I prefer abandoning the selma'o ZEhEI and adopting a cmavo compound of BU+MAI instead. It would be simple to let {ze'ei} be of selma'o MAI.

For example, the definition of {xo'e} 
is currently 

zo'e ze'ei pa

Let's modify it as follows:

zo'e bu ze'ei pa

and change the selma'o for {ze'ei} to MAI. 

Alex Burka

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 3:27:48 PM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
Hmm, I don't know about this. I definitely see the motivation to avoid modifying a bunch of parser rules (though what xorxes wrote really isn't that many), but I'm not sure that MAI matches. A ((number / lerfu-string) MAI-clause) is just an indicator, which binds to the previous word. So if you write {zo'e bu ze'ei pa} with ze'ei in MAI, then it parses as {((zo'e bu) ze'ei) pa}, with the zo'ebuze'ei attached to whatever precedes, rather than the {pa}. Then to match the semantics to the grammar you'd want to swap the order of {ze'ei} and make it {pa zo'e bu ze'ei}. Thoughts?

- mu'o mi'e durkavore
--

guskant

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 5:51:41 PM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 04:27:48 UTC+9, la durka a écrit :
Hmm, I don't know about this. I definitely see the motivation to avoid modifying a bunch of parser rules (though what xorxes wrote really isn't that many), but I'm not sure that MAI matches. A ((number / lerfu-string) MAI-clause) is just an indicator, which binds to the previous word. So if you write {zo'e bu ze'ei pa} with ze'ei in MAI, then it parses as {((zo'e bu) ze'ei) pa}, with the zo'ebuze'ei attached to whatever precedes, rather than the {pa}. Then to match the semantics to the grammar you'd want to swap the order of {ze'ei} and make it {pa zo'e bu ze'ei}. Thoughts?

- mu'o mi'e durkavore

 

You are right, though the span of semantics does not have to be the same as the span of syntax. If you don't mind changing the order of words around {ze'ei}, we could modify the definition of {ze'ei} of MAI so that the usage should be "X Y bu ze'ei". So the definition of {xo'e} will be as you said: 

pa zo'e bu ze'ei

mu'o

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 6:52:00 PM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

 If you don't mind changing the order of words around {ze'ei}, we could modify the definition of {ze'ei} of MAI so that the usage should be "X Y bu ze'ei". So the definition of {xo'e} will be as you said: 

pa zo'e bu ze'ei

Notice though that "pa zo'e bu" is a number, so "pa zo'e bu ze'ei" with "ze'ei" in MAI, would be a free modifier, not a digit.

(I think PA and lerfu should not mix together to form numbers/lerfu-strings, but that's a different discussion.)

Other selma'o that couldn't be extended by this method, besides PA, would be ZO, LOhU, ZOI, ZEI, BY, BU, UI, tags, and maybe a few others. That's because free modifiers are not all that free.

guskant

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 8:51:44 PM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 07:52:00 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :


On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

 If you don't mind changing the order of words around {ze'ei}, we could modify the definition of {ze'ei} of MAI so that the usage should be "X Y bu ze'ei". So the definition of {xo'e} will be as you said: 

pa zo'e bu ze'ei

Notice though that "pa zo'e bu" is a number, so "pa zo'e bu ze'ei" with "ze'ei" in MAI, would be a free modifier, not a digit.

(I think PA and lerfu should not mix together to form numbers/lerfu-strings, but that's a different discussion.)


ua lu
pa boi zo'e bu ze'ei 
li'u
drani  .ei 

Other selma'o that couldn't be extended by this method, besides PA, would be ZO, LOhU, ZOI, ZEI, BY, BU, UI, tags, and maybe a few others. That's because free modifiers are not all that free.


ie
In order to apply {ze'ei} to those cmavo, keeping {zo'e bu ze'ei pa} form seems better, permitting the difference between semantics and syntax. Actually, {ze'ei} is used only for definitions of experimental cmavo, and it means that {X bu ze'ei} cluster is always put at the beginning of statement or fragment. Such {X bu ze'ei} cluster then can be naturally regarded as covering the whole line of definition. I don't know if any selma'o other than MAI can bring a better solution.
 

guskant

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 11:28:29 PM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com

I tried to create a draft for new definition of {ze'ei} of MAI.

Definition:
Change the meaning of the first word within the semantic span of ze'ei-cluster, without changing syntactic role of the word. The new meaning of the word is the same as the word followed by {bu} forming the ze'ei-cluster.

Notes:
Usually, ze'ei-cluster has a form "X bu ze'ei", where X is any lojban word other than the words of selma'o ZO or FAhO. A ze'ei-cluster is usually put at the beginning of the definition of a word, and the semantic span is the whole line of the definition. Just like definitions of most cmavo, the definitions by ze'ei are not to be used to expand the defined word appearing in a statement, because such a substitution will change the span of ze'ei-cluster.

example of usage:
zo'e bu ze'ei pa 


However, in considering the definitions of cmavo using {ze'ei}, I am inclined to make it of selma'o {GOI} rather than {MAI}.
It is because definitions like {iu bu ze'ei ku} are not grammatical. There are many cmavo that cannot stand alone. Those cmavo should be defined with a statement, not with an expanded form of the defined cmavo.

Using {ze'ei} of GOI, the definition of {xo'e} will be:

zo pa ze'ei zo zo'e


mu'o

Stela Selckiku

unread,
Apr 1, 2015, 11:44:55 PM4/1/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
.e'u ru'e cmavo ma'oi si
mi'e .tel.

guskant

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 12:04:41 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 12:44:55 UTC+9, la stela selckiku a écrit :
.e'u ru'e cmavo ma'oi si
mi'e .tel.


.ie ru'e i xamgu mi va'o lo nu da'i naku zo ze'ei pagbu lo te tamgau be su'o cmavo i ki'u bo lo'u iu ze'ei ku le'u mu'a na gendra .i lo go'i cu na mapti lo te tamgau

guskant

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 12:23:13 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 12:44:55 UTC+9, la stela selckiku a écrit :
.e'u ru'e cmavo ma'oi si
mi'e .tel.


.uanai xu va'o lo nu da'i go'i kei la tersmu ka'e sanji lo lidne be zo ze'ei .i ganai na go'i gi ty srera lo ka jimpe

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 2:03:20 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
One syllable longer. Well, i'aru'e.

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 2:05:53 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
2015-04-02 3:51 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:


Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 07:52:00 UTC+9, xorxes a écrit :


On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:51 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

 If you don't mind changing the order of words around {ze'ei}, we could modify the definition of {ze'ei} of MAI so that the usage should be "X Y bu ze'ei". So the definition of {xo'e} will be as you said: 

pa zo'e bu ze'ei

Notice though that "pa zo'e bu" is a number, so "pa zo'e bu ze'ei" with "ze'ei" in MAI, would be a free modifier, not a digit.

(I think PA and lerfu should not mix together to form numbers/lerfu-strings, but that's a different discussion.)


ua lu
pa boi zo'e bu ze'ei 
li'u
drani  .ei 

Other selma'o that couldn't be extended by this method, besides PA, would be ZO, LOhU, ZOI, ZEI, BY, BU, UI, tags, and maybe a few others. That's because free modifiers are not all that free.


ie
In order to apply {ze'ei} to those cmavo, keeping {zo'e bu ze'ei pa} form seems better, permitting the difference between semantics and syntax. Actually, {ze'ei} is used only for definitions of experimental cmavo

I tried to use it for {panpi ze'ei coi} :)
although imo we shouldn't necessarily stick to the usage. 

, and it means that {X bu ze'ei} cluster is always put at the beginning of statement or fragment. Such {X bu ze'ei} cluster then can be naturally regarded as covering the whole line of definition. I don't know if any selma'o other than MAI can bring a better solution.
 

--

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 8:04:19 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:23 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 12:44:55 UTC+9, la stela selckiku a écrit :
.e'u ru'e cmavo ma'oi si
mi'e .tel.

xamgu sidbo 

.uanai xu va'o lo nu da'i go'i kei la tersmu ka'e sanji lo lidne be zo ze'ei .i ganai na go'i gi ty srera lo ka jimpe

.i ja'a sanji .i .ei zo si poi cmavo ku'o .e nai lo selma'o be zo si cu vimcu lo lidne valsi

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 8:20:02 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:28 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

However, in considering the definitions of cmavo using {ze'ei}, I am inclined to make it of selma'o {GOI} rather than {MAI}.
It is because definitions like {iu bu ze'ei ku} are not grammatical. There are many cmavo that cannot stand alone. Those cmavo should be defined with a statement, not with an expanded form of the defined cmavo.

Using {ze'ei} of GOI, the definition of {xo'e} will be:

zo pa ze'ei zo zo'e

I thought the point of "ze'ei" was to create members of any selma'o, like BU does for selma'o BY and ZEI for BRIVLA, not to define new words. I'm not sure I see the point of having a cmavo dedicated to one-word definitions.

guskant

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 9:29:32 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
mu'o mi'e xorxes
  


 ,ui go'i iseki'ubo mi tugni lo du'u zo ze'ei cmavo ma'oi si
.ie .i ku'i .ei zo ze'ei cu na pagbu lo'e te tamgau be lo cmavo noi lacri lo drata lo ka gendra

ni'o di'e lo te tamgau be zo ze'ei vau .e'apei


{ze'ei} of selma'o SI

Definition:
Change the meaning of the following word to that of the preceding word without changing the syntactic role of it.
galfi lo smuni be lo pa valsi noi se lidne be vo'a ku'o lo smuni be lo pa valsi noi lidne be vo'a

Notes:
See also {zei}
srana zo {zei}

Example:
pruxi ze'ei la'e lo te pemci noi morsi cu ru'i jmive ne'i lo pemci


mu'o

 

guskant

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 9:31:45 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 22:29:32 UTC+9, guskant a écrit :

 ,ui go'i iseki'ubo mi tugni lo du'u zo ze'ei cmavo ma'oi si


sisisisisisisi fi lo du'u zo ze'ei cmavo ma'oi si

Stela Selckiku

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 10:42:33 AM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
ni'oru'e lo cilce pe'a jbobau zo'u: mi zgana so'i nu ma'oi {si} srana lo nu gerna je nai smuni ku'i vimcu .i mu'a lo jbopre ca lo cafne cu xalbo je ciska cusku lo simsa be lu  mi mutce lo ka xebni si nelci  li'u (to .u'u ru'e no'e melbi mupli .i ku'i .a'o lo morna cu slabu do .i mutce cafne selpli toi) .i ciska ke'u .i kakne je'u lo nu mulno vimcu .i ku'i .irci ciska pilno zo {si} lo nu xalbo .i pe'i no'e jbosarxe gi'e milxe lo kamymalrelsmu se mu'i lo nu mi finti zo {si'u'i} te zu'e lo nu sepli .i zo {si'u'i} simsa zo {ze'ei} po ma'oi {si} lo ka rinka lo nu lo valsi cu pilno fi lo nunsmuni .e nai lo ku'i nungensu'a .i zo {bu} milxe simsa gi'e jai pruce fi lo ku'i sumti .i zo {si'u'i} ca'e .e zo {ze'ei} .e'u ru'e jai pruce fi lo gerna kunti fi'o simsa zo {to} .e zo {sei}
mi'e .telselkik.

guskant

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 5:12:29 PM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 23:42:33 UTC+9, la stela selckiku a écrit :
ni'oru'e lo cilce pe'a jbobau zo'u: mi zgana so'i nu ma'oi {si} srana lo nu gerna je nai smuni ku'i vimcu .i mu'a lo jbopre ca lo cafne cu xalbo je ciska cusku lo simsa be lu  mi mutce lo ka xebni si nelci  li'u (to .u'u ru'e no'e melbi mupli .i ku'i .a'o lo morna cu slabu do .i mutce cafne selpli toi) .i ciska ke'u .i kakne je'u lo nu mulno vimcu .i ku'i .irci ciska pilno zo {si} lo nu xalbo .i pe'i no'e jbosarxe gi'e milxe lo kamymalrelsmu se mu'i lo nu mi finti zo {si'u'i} te zu'e lo nu sepli .i zo {si'u'i} simsa zo {ze'ei} po ma'oi {si} lo ka rinka lo nu lo valsi cu pilno fi lo nunsmuni .e nai lo ku'i nungensu'a .i zo {bu} milxe simsa gi'e jai pruce fi lo ku'i sumti .i zo {si'u'i} ca'e .e zo {ze'ei} .e'u ru'e jai pruce fi lo gerna kunti fi'o simsa zo {to} .e zo {sei}
mi'e .telselkik.


.i .iesai zo si'u'i je'u mapti lo mukti no'u la'e di'u
.i .iesai zo si'u'i jo'u zo ze'ei simsa zo to jo'u zo sei
.i semu'ibo ge zu'u mi na tugni fi lo du'u zo ze'ei cu se pilno tezu'e lo nu tamgau
gi zu'unai pe'i lo mi mupli no'u lu
pruxi ze'ei la'e lo te pemci noi morsi cu ru'i jmive ne'i lo pemci
li'u cu mapti lo jai tai pilno be zo ze'ei

mu'o

Alex Burka

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 5:16:28 PM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
.u'u mi no'e jimpe lo do mupli .i xu jongau lo smuni be zo pruxi lo gerna be fi zo la'e

guskant

unread,
Apr 2, 2015, 7:30:21 PM4/2/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le vendredi 3 avril 2015 06:16:28 UTC+9, la durka a écrit :
.u'u mi no'e jimpe lo do mupli .i xu jongau lo smuni be zo pruxi lo gerna be fi zo la'e

On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 5:12 PM, guskant wrote:



Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 23:42:33 UTC+9, la stela selckiku a écrit :
ni'oru'e lo cilce pe'a jbobau zo'u: mi zgana so'i nu ma'oi {si} srana lo nu gerna je nai smuni ku'i vimcu .i mu'a lo jbopre ca lo cafne cu xalbo je ciska cusku lo simsa be lu  mi mutce lo ka xebni si nelci  li'u (to .u'u ru'e no'e melbi mupli .i ku'i .a'o lo morna cu slabu do .i mutce cafne selpli toi) .i ciska ke'u .i kakne je'u lo nu mulno vimcu .i ku'i .irci ciska pilno zo {si} lo nu xalbo .i pe'i no'e jbosarxe gi'e milxe lo kamymalrelsmu se mu'i lo nu mi finti zo {si'u'i} te zu'e lo nu sepli .i zo {si'u'i} simsa zo {ze'ei} po ma'oi {si} lo ka rinka lo nu lo valsi cu pilno fi lo nunsmuni .e nai lo ku'i nungensu'a .i zo {bu} milxe simsa gi'e jai pruce fi lo ku'i sumti .i zo {si'u'i} ca'e .e zo {ze'ei} .e'u ru'e jai pruce fi lo gerna kunti fi'o simsa zo {to} .e zo {sei}
mi'e .telselkik.


.i .iesai zo si'u'i je'u mapti lo mukti no'u la'e di'u
.i .iesai zo si'u'i jo'u zo ze'ei simsa zo to jo'u zo sei
.i semu'ibo ge zu'u mi na tugni fi lo du'u zo ze'ei cu se pilno tezu'e lo nu tamgau
gi zu'unai pe'i lo mi mupli no'u lu
pruxi ze'ei la'e lo te pemci noi morsi cu ru'i jmive ne'i lo pemci
li'u cu mapti lo jai tai pilno be zo ze'ei

mu'o


lo'u pruxi ze'ei la'e le'u sinxa lo si'o pruxi kei po lo sumti noi se li'erla'i vo'a
.i lo jufra noi mupli cu se jicmu lo selsa'a be bau lo banfuru'a be'o no'u la'o zoi L'âme des poètes zoi 
to zoi urli
urli toi

ni'o lo'e smuni be lo pa porsi noi se pagbu zo ze'ei cu .ei so'omei
.iki'ubo lo jbopli ka'e te smuni lo pa valsi poi lidne zo ze'ei ku'o lo vrici
 
mu'o

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 10:31:44 AM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 9:04 AM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:23 AM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:
Le jeudi 2 avril 2015 12:44:55 UTC+9, la stela selckiku a écrit :
.e'u ru'e cmavo ma'oi si
mi'e .tel.

xamgu sidbo 
 
y pe'i mi mi na tugni 

.i lo valsi zei si cu snipa lo li'erla'i .e nai lo se li'erla'i .i la'a .ei la'o gerna si_clause gerna cu se vasru la'oi gy pre_clause gy .e nai la'oi gy post_clause gy .i ku'i lo ca tcini cu dukti

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 10:35:28 AM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
xu nabmi i ke'u lo cmavo enai lo se cmavo cu se jalge lo smuni
i seki'ubo da'i zo si mutce frica zo ze'ei poi cnino vau lo ka cupra makau poi smuni
i ku'i gerna dunli


mu'o mi'e xorxes

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 11:03:39 AM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-04-03 17:31 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

.i lo valsi zei si cu snipa lo li'erla'i .e nai lo se li'erla'i .i la'a .ei la'o gerna si_clause gerna cu se vasru la'oi gy pre_clause gy .e nai la'oi gy post_clause gy .i ku'i lo ca tcini cu dukti

xu nabmi i ke'u lo cmavo enai lo se cmavo cu se jalge lo smuni
i seki'ubo da'i zo si mutce frica zo ze'ei poi cnino vau lo ka cupra makau poi smuni
i ku'i gerna dunli

 pe'i lo du'u lo gerna stura cu drani vajni si cu vajni 

(pe'i [lo {du'u <(¹lo [gerna stura] KU¹) (¹cu [drani {vajni si}] VAU¹)> KEI} KU] [cu {vajni VAU}]) 

 pe'i lo du'u lo gerna stura cu drani vajni ze'ei cu vajni 

(pe'i [lo {du'u <(¹lo [gerna stura] KU¹) (¹cu [drani {vajni ze'ei}] VAU¹)> KEI} KU] [cu {vajni VAU}]) 

xu do jinvi lo di'u gerna stura cu drani

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 11:18:04 AM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
2015-04-03 18:03 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:


On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-04-03 17:31 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

.i lo valsi zei si cu snipa lo li'erla'i .e nai lo se li'erla'i .i la'a .ei la'o gerna si_clause gerna cu se vasru la'oi gy pre_clause gy .e nai la'oi gy post_clause gy .i ku'i lo ca tcini cu dukti

xu nabmi i ke'u lo cmavo enai lo se cmavo cu se jalge lo smuni
i seki'ubo da'i zo si mutce frica zo ze'ei poi cnino vau lo ka cupra makau poi smuni
i ku'i gerna dunli

 pe'i lo du'u lo gerna stura cu drani vajni si cu vajni 

(pe'i [lo {du'u <(¹lo [gerna stura] KU¹) (¹cu [drani {vajni si}] VAU¹)> KEI} KU] [cu {vajni VAU}]) 

je'e 


 pe'i lo du'u lo gerna stura cu drani vajni ze'ei cu vajni 

(pe'i [lo {du'u <(¹lo [gerna stura] KU¹) (¹cu [drani {vajni ze'ei}] VAU¹)> KEI} KU] [cu {vajni VAU}]) 

xu do jinvi lo di'u gerna stura cu drani

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 12:50:52 PM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
Can we rewrite how {zei} works and postulate that the last part of words glued together with {zei} determines its grammar?
Thus, {panpi zei coi} will become a vocative but {coi zei panpi} will be a brivla as well as {broda zei brode zei panpi}?
This will eliminate at least one usage of {ze'ei}.

I'm not sure what {coi zei coi} could mean as a brivla and what would it be its place structure.

Stela Selckiku

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 2:32:47 PM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:50 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we rewrite how {zei} works and postulate that the last part of words glued together with {zei} determines its grammar?
Thus, {panpi zei coi} will become a vocative but {coi zei panpi} will be a brivla as well as {broda zei brode zei panpi}?
This will eliminate at least one usage of {ze'ei}.

I'm not sure what {coi zei coi} could mean as a brivla and what would it be its place structure.



.ie sai! bu'o .i .au sai! .cekitaujaus. zei basti fa zo zei zo ze'ei .i milxe po'o lo ka plixau fa lo cmavo poi gasnu lo nu lo cmavo cu binxo lo brivla .i .ei lo clamau po'u zo ze'ei gasnu lo cizra po'u lo nu brivlagau lo cmavo .i .ei .au zo zei se pilno fi lo plixaumau pe'i nu gerna stura valsi zbasu .i sutra tavla nitcu va'o .i pavyslaka .au sai! ke'u mu'o

mi'e la stela selckiku

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 2:36:43 PM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
pe'i na srana la cekitajaus

i va'o ri lo smuni cu cenba ge'esai

i ku'i ba'e mi na stidi lo nu lo smuni be lu sa'ei zei valsi li'u mu'a noi pu se pilno cu cenba

i mi stidi lo nu PEG cu cenba
i ju'o lu coi zei coi li'u a lo simsa pu noroi se pilno 

i mutce frica la cekitaujaus ku noi fi'o jinvi mi ka'e daspo le bangu

i mi ku'i djica lo nu PEG zenba lo ka ge vlipa gi banzu sampu



mi'e la stela selckiku

--

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 4:59:36 PM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
Can we rewrite how {zei} works and postulate that the last part of words glued together with {zei} determines its grammar?
Thus, {panpi zei coi} will become a vocative but {coi zei panpi} will be a brivla as well as {broda zei brode zei panpi}?
This will eliminate at least one usage of {ze'ei}.

I think the right way to go about it is this:

(1) implement "ze'ei", either as a member of SI or in its own selma'o ZEhEI.
(2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, given that "ze'ei" will then cover most of its uses.
(3) replace "ze'ei" with "zei", since it would be no longer in use. 

We don't have (1) working properly yet, so (2) and (3) are premature, but I would be in favor of (2) and (3) once (1) is working properly. 

I'm not sure what {coi zei coi} could mean as a brivla and what would it be its place structure.

Like any lujvo, it could be defined as anything, it could mean "x1 says 'hi!' to x2", for example. In actual usage, most of the uses of "zei" are with a brivla as the second word, so I don't think it would be a great loss to restrict zei-compounds to only be brivla when the last element is a brivla.

As for (1), I think making use of selma'o SI is the best option, but si_clause has to be moved from post_clause to pre_clause so that the SI-tagged word attaches to the word that follows, not the one that precedes, as it does now:

post_clause = spaces? indicators*

pre_clause = BAhE_clause? si_clause?

(In fact, I think "spaces?" should be absorbed by "post_word", not by "post_clause", since spaces don't really belong to this level of the grammar, so "post_clause" should only absorb indicators and free.)

(I removed the "!BU_clause !ZEI_clause" too because I don't think they do anything, but perhaps they need to be restored.)

Additionally, we need to eliminate "intro_si_clause", which is no longer needed, but we have to replace it with a final "si_clause" for the case when "si" is not followed by anything. 

Something like this:

text = intro_null NAI_clause* text_part_2 (!text_1 joik_jek)? text_1? si_clause? faho_clause EOF?

Although this means that a text ending in "word ze'ei" will be grammatical. Perhaps we can force it to mean "word ze'ei fa'o" by reformulating "fa'o" as an elidable terminator, so that it is restored like all the other terminators. Then we can get rid of that additional "si_clause?", since FAhO_clause already has a pre_clause.

In conclusion, I do think moving "si_clause" from "post_clause" to "pre_clause" is The Right Thing(tm). Opinions?

guskant

unread,
Apr 3, 2015, 8:54:13 PM4/3/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com

I prefer 

(1)-1. implementing "ze'ei" as a member of SI,  with moving "si_clause" from "post_clause" to "pre_clause",

and also doing both

(2) eliminate selma'o ZEI, and
(3) replace "ze'ei" with "zei".

mu'o mi'e guskant 

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 4, 2015, 4:56:07 AM4/4/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com

2015-04-03 23:59 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

I'm not sure what {coi zei coi} could mean as a brivla and what would it be its place structure.

Like any lujvo, it could be defined as anything, it could mean "x1 says 'hi!' to x2", for example. In actual usage, most of the uses of "zei" are with a brivla as the second word, so I don't think it would be a great loss to restrict zei-compounds to only be brivla when the last element is a brivla.

It'd be ideologically not lujvo but some kind of fu'ivla since the place structure magically comes out of nothing. And I'd just choose

mi coi zei rinsa do lo ka cusku/ciska/bacru [zo coi]
with the same place structure as {rinsa} except {zo coi} taking a place inside rinsa3.
Or this hardcoding of {zo coi} could be expressed with {mi coi ze rinsa do lo ka bacru makau} = I hi-greet you in what I'm uttering.


ni'o as for your PEG modifications on zei/ze'ei I need time. I'm not sure if the goal of finishing PEG is close (then I'll try implementing them) or not (and then I probably think of this tool instead).

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Apr 4, 2015, 5:00:39 AM4/4/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com

2015-04-04 11:55 GMT+03:00 Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com>:
Or this hardcoding of {zo coi} could be expressed with {mi coi ze rinsa do lo ka bacru makau} = I hi-greet you in what I'm uttering.

{mi coi zei rinsa do ...}, u'u

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 4, 2015, 9:25:20 AM4/4/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
2015-04-03 23:59 GMT+03:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

Like any lujvo, it could be defined as anything, it could mean "x1 says 'hi!' to x2", for example. In actual usage, most of the uses of "zei" are with a brivla as the second word, so I don't think it would be a great loss to restrict zei-compounds to only be brivla when the last element is a brivla.

It'd be ideologically not lujvo but some kind of fu'ivla since the place structure magically comes out of nothing.

Is "kemke'e" ideologically not a lujvo, then? It doesn't matter whether we call it a lujvo or not, "coi zei coi" is now a brivla and with the change it will stop being a brivla. It is obviously a compound too, so not calling it a lujvo seems arbitrary. I'm not sure it's an essential property of lujvo that its place structure has to come out of its components, even if it usually does. 
 
ni'o as for your PEG modifications on zei/ze'ei I need time. I'm not sure if the goal of finishing PEG is close (then I'll try implementing them) or not (and then I probably think of this tool instead).

That woud be good, it looks a lot like this: http://pegjs.org/online
but when I try to paste the camxes-exp.js.peg file in there the page freezes for me, maybe it's too large for it.

As for ze'ei in SI, a few more issues we need to be aware of:

(1) "si" is allowed at the beginning of text, "zei" is not. Maybe we could just disallow "si" there since it doesn't mean anything.

(2) a text can end with "word si". Do we want to allow a text to end with "word ze'ei" as well? This could be solved by either requiring "fa'o", or restoring an elidable "fa'o" there.

(3) multiple "si" work back to multiple words: "da de di si si si do" leaves just "do" standing. Do we want "da de di ze'ei ze'ei ze'ei do" to be just one sumti as well? This would be a change from how "zei" works now. (Not necessarily a bad change.)

Alex Burka

unread,
Apr 25, 2015, 12:37:59 PM4/25/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
I tried to do this (delete ZEI, add {zei} and {ze'ei} to SI, and move SI from post_clause to pre_clause) but I was unable to complete the last step without introducing left recursion into the pre_clause rule. So it seems easier said than done. I am not an expert in these dark corners of the PEG, though.

Also, one more issue to add to the above list (I still like this idea, though):
(4) Currently {zei} can quote any word on the right, so {coi zei co'o'o'oi} parses. Not sure what this is useful for, but it's in the grammar.

- mu'o mi'e durkavore

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 25, 2015, 2:51:49 PM4/25/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 1:37 PM, Alex Burka <dur...@gmail.com> wrote:
I tried to do this (delete ZEI, add {zei} and {ze'ei} to SI, and move SI from post_clause to pre_clause) but I was unable to complete the last step without introducing left recursion into the pre_clause rule. So it seems easier said than done. I am not an expert in these dark corners of the PEG, though.

Yes, the magic words section is quite tricky. I think what you need is to also replace pre_zei_bu with something like:

pre_zei_bu: (BRIVLA / !BU !ZEI !SI !SA !SU !FAhO CMAVO) spaces?

(or a list of all si-erasable selmaho, if you want to be able to identify the selmaho of the erased/modifier words).
 
The left recursion occurs because the current pre_zei_bu is calling pre_clause, which now calls pre_zei_bu, which calls pre_clause, which calls pre_zei_bu, which calls pre_clause, and so on...

You also need to remove SA_clause from si_clause for the same reason. I heven't bothered to think what it should be replaced with, since I'd like SA out of the grammar altogether, but it probably should be some sort of sa_clause_no_pre added to erasable_clause.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Apr 25, 2015, 3:42:39 PM4/25/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 3:51 PM, Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com> wrote:

You also need to remove SA_clause from si_clause for the same reason. I heven't bothered to think what it should be replaced with, since I'd like SA out of the grammar altogether, but it probably should be some sort of sa_clause_no_pre added to erasable_clause.

Actually, it just hast to be replaced with "SA spaces?", but SA needs to be rethought anyway.

Additional changes needed to clean up: 

- remove "intro_si_clause" which is no longer needed because now an initial si_clause gets absorbed by what follows. With intro_si_clause there, the new zei-words won't be able to start a text. 

- add "si_clause?" either before or inside "faho_clause", so that a final word can be deleted without replacing it with anything. If we want "broda zei fa'o" to work as expected though, this will probably require some more tinkering. 

guskant

unread,
Jun 20, 2015, 7:32:30 AM6/20/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
 la zantufa no'u lo cipra genturfa'i be fi'e mi zo'u
mi mo'u stika tu'a zo SI e zo zei tezu'e lo nu panra lo se stidi be la xorxes
to zoi zoi 


zoi
.i ku'i sa'u ji'a mi jmina zoi zoi 

ZO spaces? any_word spaces?

zoi jo'u zoi zoi 

!LOhU !ZO 

zoi 
la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi di'e 
.i zoizoi

pre_zei_bu = expr:(( BRIVLA / ZO spaces? any_word spaces? / !BU !LOhU !ZO !SI !SA !SU !FAhO CMAVO) spaces?) {return _node("pre_zei_bu", expr); }

zoi

.ija'ela'edi'u la zantufa xi pipare cu se steci la'e di'e .i tu'e

ma'oi SI cmima la'o zoi pre_clause zoi .ije
zo zei cmima ma'oi SI (to zo ze'ei ji'a co'e .i ku'i ca co'u sarcu ki'u lo nu zo zei ka'e basti zo ze'ei toi) .ije
lu zo SI li'u cu pu je ca ji'a sumti .ije
pi ro lu zo valsi SI li'u cu pu je ca ji'a se turni zo SI .ije
lo du'e mei be zo SI cu na gendra (to dunli la camxes gi'e frica la ilmentufa zei camxes toi) .ije
lo'u SI bu le'u cu pu je ca ji'a na gendra .ije
lu lo'u SI le'u li'u cu se turni zo lo'u

tu'u

.i do ge'i tugni mi lo du'u jmina de'u noi srana zo zo jo'u zo lo'u 
gi stidi lo drata sidbo

mu'o mi'e la guskant

guskant

unread,
Jun 20, 2015, 8:49:58 PM6/20/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
.u'u jo'au ilmentufa be caku 
lo'ai sa'u sa'ai sa'unai le'ai 
lo'ai ija'ela'edi'u sa'ai iseja'ela'edi'u le'ai

no'i jo'au zantufa xi pipare do'u
pe'ibu'o xauzma falonu zoi zoi CMEVLA zoi ji'a cu cmima la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi
.iseja'e logo'iku la ca zantufa xi pisosososo cu curmi lo'u la camxes zei
ilmentufa le'u mu'a
noi la ilmentufa jo'u la camxes cu curmi ke'a
to zoizoi
zoi
.i pau lo nu mi galfi pe la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi cu xamgu xu ma'i lo si'o melbi fa lo gerna

.i ta'oru'e pe'i va'o lo nu zo zei cmima ma'oi SI kei 
la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi cu .ei se cmene lo drata
.i ma noi cmene cu mapti

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Jun 21, 2015, 5:48:20 PM6/21/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 9:49 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

to zoizoi
zoi
.i pau lo nu mi galfi pe la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi cu xamgu xu ma'i lo si'o melbi fa lo gerna

 si'au da spofu .i mu'a lu pa bu li'u .e lu zo da bu li'u .e lu lo'u da de di le'u zei da li'u .i mi na jimpe lo du'u ki'u ma zo pa frica lo cmavo be lo drata lo ka tarti ma kau

.i ta'oru'e pe'i va'o lo nu zo zei cmima ma'oi SI kei 
la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi cu .ei se cmene lo drata
.i ma noi cmene cu mapti

dunli la'o zoi si_word zoi .i pe'i na sarcu fa lo nu lo re javni cu zasti 

guskant

unread,
Jun 22, 2015, 9:46:10 PM6/22/15
to bpfk...@googlegroups.com


Le dimanche 21 juin 2015 21:48:20 UTC, xorxes a écrit :


On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 9:49 PM, guskant <gusni...@gmail.com> wrote:

to zoizoi
zoi
.i pau lo nu mi galfi pe la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi cu xamgu xu ma'i lo si'o melbi fa lo gerna

 si'au da spofu .i mu'a lu pa bu li'u .e lu zo da bu li'u .e lu lo'u da de di le'u zei da li'u .i mi na jimpe lo du'u ki'u ma zo pa frica lo cmavo be lo drata lo ka tarti ma kau

jo'au zantufa xi pipaci zoizoi
zoi
.i .ie .i.u'u za'a mi pu tolmo'i lo nu vimcu da poi cipra lerpoi .i la zantufa xi pipaci cu genturfa'i  lu pa bu li'u .e lu zo da bu li'u .e lu lo'u da de di le'u zei da li'u

 

.i ta'oru'e pe'i va'o lo nu zo zei cmima ma'oi SI kei 
la'o zoi pre_zei_bu zoi cu .ei se cmene lo drata
.i ma noi cmene cu mapti

dunli la'o zoi si_word zoi .i pe'i na sarcu fa lo nu lo re javni cu zasti 


.ie .i ba'o vimcu zoi zoi pre_zei_bu zoi .i la'o zoi si_word zoi cu ca se tarmi di'e i zoi peg

si_word = (CMEVLA / BRIVLA / ZO spaces? any_word / LOhU spaces? (!LEhU any_word)* LEhU / ZOI spaces? zoi_open spaces? zoi_word* zoi_close / !BU !SI !SA !SU !FAhO CMAVO) spaces?

peg
.i za'a seja'e la'e di'u 
la zantufa xi pipaci cu banzu co simsa la camxes lo ka genturfa'i ce'u kei 
gi'e ku'i frica cy lo ka zo zei jo'u zo ze'ei cmima ce'u
.i iepei

.i la'a melbymau fa lo nu tamgau zoi peg zo_clause_no_pre peg .e zoi peg lehu_clause_no_pre peg .e zoi peg zoi_clause_no_pre peg .
i .iepei

 mu'o
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages