Re: [lojban] (Technical) Problem area in v3 grammar
John Cowan
> Having had another day to think about this, I think John's suggested
> modification to grammar.300 provides more generality than is actually
> required to fix the problem.
True.
> I believe the minimal change needed is to redefine term<83> to look like
> this :
>
> term<83> = sumti | tag /NUhI/ sumti | tag /KU#/ | FA # (sumti | /KU#/) | termset | NA KU #
>
> i.e. make it optional to insert nu'i between a tag and the following
> sumti.
That works, but it creates two entirely separate functions for "nu'i":
1) starts a termset, with elidable terminator "nu'u",
2) optionally joins a tag to a following sumti.
(BTW, "nu'i" is not really elidable here, since elidability is a
terminator property; rather it is optional.)
--
John Cowan co...@ccil.org
Yes, I know the message date is bogus. I can't help it.
--me, on far too many occasions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their
articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get
paid in cash for their work. Click below:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/960143202/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Richard Curnow
>
> I figure it is about time to step in and say something, because this
> problem has put us on new and uncertain ground and I have passed it to the
> LLG Board to decide the baseline policy issue pertaining to this problem.
>
> Note that, even if it is the "right solution", there is likely to be
> considerable debate amongst the Board as to whether we should break the
> baseline to make the fix official, indeed especially since the change is so
> incidental that it sounds like people are on the point of classifying it
> like one of several other unfortunate inconsistencies in the
> Book. (Erroneous parses, on the other hand are a significantly undesirable
> situation, so nothing is cut and dried).
>
> It is possible that the change may be left as an unofficial
> possible-solution to be tried out until the baseline period is over. Or it
> may remain in limbo until/unless we can publish a 2nd edition of the
> Book. (There may have to be consideration for the perhaps 20% of our
> purchasers who have bought copies through bookstores or otherwise
> indirectly, who we could not contact with a correction/errata on the
> necessary change to the book baseline, which some might feel an essential
> requirement for us if we change the baseline officially.)
>
> People are welcome to continue to explore ramifications of the problem and
> its possible solutions, but the impact of this problem and its potential
> solution on the baseline policy, if any, will be dealt with separately from
> the technical issue itself.
Fortunately the situation does not seem to be so bad. The "la frank.
sanli..." example from the Book *DOES* actually make it through a parser
based on the BNF grammar definition (albeit in a slightly unexpected
way). As John has pointed out, the construct exhibited by this example
can also be used as a workaround to the original "pu zi gi <sumti> gi
<sumti>" wart I found. So at a fundamental level, the Book and the
machine grammar *CAN* be considered mutually consistent, *AND* a
workaround to my problem exists (i.e. use 'tag termset' where
termset="nu'i sumti", instead of 'tag sumti' where the original problem
exists) within the scope of the existing grammar and the Book. The 'tag
sumti' variant can be considered an optional rule (since it can always
be expressed with the 'tag termset' method), which removes the remaining
shift/reduce conflict that I found in the grammar.
Thus, the good news is that there isn't a fundamental need to change the
Book or the grammar. This will be something of a relief, I am sure,
considering the issues Bob highlights in the quote above.
>From the practical viewpoint of building a language processing tool
though, it does seem desirable to add a rule for "term = tag termset" to
the grammar. As I said yesterday, the "la frank. sanli..." example
parses the zu'a and the termset as two independent terms in a sequence,
the zu'a looking like a floating tense with the whole bridi as its
scope. The idiom envisaged in the Book is clear - in this case the zu'a
has to be considered bound to the following termset as a tense ranging
over that termset, not as a floating tense.
Based on this, the intent of the Book is that whenever 2 terms occur in
sequence with the 1st being a tag and the 2nd a termset, they are
considered bound together in this way. Hence my assertion that adding a
"term = tag termset" to the grammar doesn't contradict the existing
materials (the Book and grammar definition) - it merely codifies this
idiom into the grammar definition directly.
Anyway, I'm including this extra 'term' rule into v0.33 of jbofi'e when
it appears, since it gives practical benefits for analysing texts using
this construct. The casualties are texts that intentionally use a
floating tense without a terminating ku immediately before a termset.
These are inconsistent with the "la frank. sanli..." example and
supporting text from the Book anyway.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Curnow r...@myself.com
Weston-super-Mare
United Kingdom http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their
articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get
paid in cash for their work. Click below:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/960323299/
Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)
>On Sun, Jun 04, 2000 at 06:14:10PM -0700, Clark & Janiece Nelson wrote:
> > > Richard Curnow scripsit:
> > >
> > > > Having had another day to think about this, I think John's suggested
> > > > modification to grammar.300 provides more generality than is
> > actually
> > > > required to fix the problem.
> > >
> >
> > from The Complete Lojban Language, chapter 10, section 27: "It is
> > grammatical for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag," thus
> > removing a contradiction from the Book.
>
>Yes indeed - I hadn't noticed that statement in the book in the context
>of this issue before. Also, in the light of John's email yesterday
>showing how my minimal scheme would introduce two distinct uses for
>nu'i, it's pretty clear that John's method is the right one to adopt.
I figure it is about time to step in and say something, because this
problem has put us on new and uncertain ground and I have passed it to the
LLG Board to decide the baseline policy issue pertaining to this problem.
Note that, even if it is the "right solution", there is likely to be
considerable debate amongst the Board as to whether we should break the
baseline to make the fix official, indeed especially since the change is so
incidental that it sounds like people are on the point of classifying it
like one of several other unfortunate inconsistencies in the
Book. (Erroneous parses, on the other hand are a significantly undesirable
situation, so nothing is cut and dried).
It is possible that the change may be left as an unofficial
possible-solution to be tried out until the baseline period is over. Or it
may remain in limbo until/unless we can publish a 2nd edition of the
Book. (There may have to be consideration for the perhaps 20% of our
purchasers who have bought copies through bookstores or otherwise
indirectly, who we could not contact with a correction/errata on the
necessary change to the book baseline, which some might feel an essential
requirement for us if we change the baseline officially.)
People are welcome to continue to explore ramifications of the problem and
its possible solutions, but the impact of this problem and its potential
solution on the baseline policy, if any, will be dealt with separately from
the technical issue itself.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Richard Curnow
> >
> > > Having had another day to think about this, I think John's suggested
> > > modification to grammar.300 provides more generality than is
> actually
> > > required to fix the problem.
> >
>
> from The Complete Lojban Language, chapter 10, section 27: "It is
> grammatical for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag," thus
> removing a contradiction from the Book.
Yes indeed - I hadn't noticed that statement in the book in the context
of this issue before. Also, in the light of John's email yesterday
showing how my minimal scheme would introduce two distinct uses for
nu'i, it's pretty clear that John's method is the right one to adopt.
>
Clark & Janiece Nelson
From: John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>
> Richard Curnow scripsit:
>
> > Having had another day to think about this, I think John's suggested
> > modification to grammar.300 provides more generality than is
actually
> > required to fix the problem.
>
> True.
zu'unai le te galfi pe la djan. jai se jetnu la'e le jufra be ne'i la
mulno lojbo bangu xi pano pi'e reze be'o po'u zoi gy. It is grammatical
for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag .gy. .ibo le go'i
cu vimcu lo sezna'e le cukta
fe'o
On the other hand, John's modification would make true the statement
from The Complete Lojban Language, chapter 10, section 27: "It is
grammatical for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag," thus
removing a contradiction from the Book.
Clark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their
articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get
paid in cash for their work. Click below:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/960167646/
Richard Curnow
> from The Complete Lojban Language, chapter 10, section 27: "It is
> grammatical for a termset to be placed after a tense or modal tag," thus
> removing a contradiction from the Book.
>
More thoughts ...
I tried the example in the book that follows the statement :
la frank. sanli zu'a nu'i la djordj. lu'a lo mitre be li mu nu'u
and interestingly it does parse already! - although, the zu'a is parsed
as a single term (i.e. a floating tense), rather than a tag applying to
the following nu'i..nu'u termset. So if you use John's 'tag termset'
construction with the existing grammar, you don't get the meaning you
think you're getting. Hence, the extra grammar rule is necessary to
make this construct useful as a fix for the problem I originally raised.
(If you really want zu'a to be a floating tense in the above example,
you'd have to put ku afterwards.)
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard P. Curnow r...@myself.com
Weston-super-Mare
United Kingdom http://www.rrbcurnow.freeuk.com/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WRITERS WANTED! Themestream allows ALL writers to publish their
articles on the Web, reach thousands of interested readers, and get
paid in cash for their work. Click below:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3840/3/_/17627/_/960243653/