Feature: Termless Prenexes

[Jacob Errington]

Quoth Gleki:
ta'o {fi'i lo vitke zo'u se pluka} should also be parseable.

I second this. I'm busy at the moment and can't look up the relevant production in the grammar, but I feel that it's as simple as an addition of a '?' or '*' in the production for the prenex.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

[selpa'i]

I am worried that {.i zo'u broda} would become possible, and I don't see the benefit, let alone the beauty of it. The current prenex rule is:

prenex = expr:((terms / free* ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return _node("prenex", expr);}

which does allow {.i zo'u broda}.

What *could* be done is this:

prenex = expr:((terms / free+ ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return _node("prenex", expr);}

which would make a {zo'u} only legal if *something* comes before it. This forbids the {.i zo'u broda}, but allows {.i coi pendo zo'u broda}, but I don't know if this is better. In any case, this would cause a weird but interesting exception to the handling of free modifiers in the language: A free modifier like SEI or COI would become equal to a term when it appears in a prenex. 

I am rather neutral about this prenex business right now, but let me just say that I see among the goals of this experimental Lojban the simplification of the language, i.e. the elimination of exceptions.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[Gleki Arxokuna]

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:54 PM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

Am Mittwoch, 6. November 2013 05:35:32 UTC+1 schrieb nictytan:

Quoth Gleki:
ta'o {fi'i lo vitke zo'u se pluka} should also be parseable.

I second this. I'm busy at the moment and can't look up the relevant production in the grammar, but I feel that it's as simple as an addition of a '?' or '*' in the production for the prenex.

I am worried that {.i zo'u broda} would become possible, and I don't see the benefit, let alone the beauty of it.

i mi jimpe nai lodu'u makau nabmi i sa'u e'u na pilno lo'u i zo'u broda le'u

i ku'i lo'u coi pendo zo'u do mo le'u melbi mi

 

The current prenex rule is:

prenex = expr:((terms / free* ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return _node("prenex", expr);}

which does allow {.i zo'u broda}.

What *could* be done is this:

prenex = expr:((terms / free+ ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return _node("prenex", expr);}

which would make a {zo'u} only legal if *something* comes before it. This forbids the {.i zo'u broda}, but allows {.i coi pendo zo'u broda}, but I don't know if this is better. In any case, this would cause a weird but interesting exception to the handling of free modifiers in the language: A free modifier like SEI or COI would become equal to a term when it appears in a prenex. 

I am rather neutral about this prenex business right now, but let me just say that I see among the goals of this experimental Lojban the simplification of the language, i.e. the elimination of exceptions.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

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

[Jorge Llambías]

On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de> wrote:

I am worried that {.i zo'u broda} would become possible, and I don't see the benefit, let alone the beauty of it. The current prenex rule is:

prenex = expr:((terms / free* ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return _node("prenex", expr);}

which does allow {.i zo'u broda}.

What *could* be done is this:

prenex = expr:((terms / free+ ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return _node("prenex", expr);}

which would make a {zo'u} only legal if *something* comes before it. This forbids the {.i zo'u broda}, but allows {.i coi pendo zo'u broda}, but I don't know if this is better. In any case, this would cause a weird but interesting exception to the handling of free modifiers in the language: A free modifier like SEI or COI would become equal to a term when it appears in a prenex. 

I don't think that would work, because "coi pendo" will be absorbed by text_1 before it has a chance to be absorbed by "prenex". In ".i coi pendo zo'u broda", "coi pendo" comes before the prenex and the prenex is in fact empty. I suspect that "terms / free* " in prenex could just as well (and should) be replaced simply by "terms?", because "free" in prenex will never get a chance to absorb anything. 

 

I am rather neutral about this prenex business right now, but let me just say that I see among the goals of this experimental Lojban the simplification of the language, i.e. the elimination of exceptions.

Some of the changes seem to be making the syntax more complex rather than simpler, but allowing empty prenex seems ok to me.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[selpa'i]

la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e

> On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 8:54 AM, selpa'i <sel...@gmx.de
> <mailto:sel...@gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>
> I am worried that {.i zo'u broda} would become possible, and I don't
> see the benefit, let alone the beauty of it. The current prenex rule is:
>
> prenex = expr:((terms / free* ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return
> _node("prenex", expr);}
>
> which does allow {.i zo'u broda}.
>
> What *could* be done is this:
>
> prenex = expr:((terms / free+ ) ZOhU_clause free*) {return
> _node("prenex", expr);}
>
> which would make a {zo'u} only legal if *something* comes before it.
> This forbids the {.i zo'u broda}, but allows {.i coi pendo zo'u
> broda}, but I don't know if this is better. In any case, this would
> cause a weird but interesting exception to the handling of free
> modifiers in the language: A free modifier like SEI or COI would
> become equal to a term when it appears in a prenex.
>
>
> I don't think that would work, because "coi pendo" will be absorbed by
> text_1 before it has a chance to be absorbed by "prenex". In ".i coi
> pendo zo'u broda", "coi pendo" comes before the prenex and the prenex is
> in fact empty. I suspect that "terms / free* " in prenex could just as
> well (and should) be replaced simply by "terms?", because "free" in
> prenex will never get a chance to absorb anything.

I think you are right.

>
> I am rather neutral about this prenex business right now, but let me
> just say that I see among the goals of this experimental Lojban the
> simplification of the language, i.e. the elimination of exceptions.
>
>
> Some of the changes seem to be making the syntax more complex rather
> than simpler, but allowing empty prenex seems ok to me.

*nod*

Then this ZOhU would be similar to the new CU idea, which is to allow CU
even if no terms precede the selbri. Such a CU would no longer be a
bridi-head terminator, but a "mark selbri-slot" cmavo, analogous to how
FA marks sumti-slots. ZOhU, to keep the comparison, would then almost be
like a "signal upcoming bridi" cmavo. FA, CU and ZOhU would thus
constitute a loose family. (I like to look for such parallels as it
makes the language easier to teach and learn and lets one see regularity
where there is none :P )

[Ilmen]

la selpa'i cu cusku di'e

Actually the original expression was � prenex = expr:(terms ZOhU_clause
free*) �; it's me who added this "(terms / free*)" in order to enable
empty prenexes. At this time I also tried "(terms / free+)", but it
didn't work, so I think Xorxes is right on this point.