selma'o ZEhEI and PEG

[Jorge Llambías]

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]

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]

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} 

http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.e'u ru'e cmavo ma'oi si

mi'e .tel.

[guskant]

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]

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]

One syllable longer. Well, i'aru'e.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

.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]

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

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27%C3%82me_des_po%C3%A8tes

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?