WikiDiscuss

Posted by xorxes on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 18:34 GMT posts: 1912

Consider this sentence:

*mi klama ge le zarci le zdani gi le zdani le zarci
"I go to the market from the house and to the
house from the market"

It is currently ungrammatical, to make it grammatical we
have to add a nu'i somewhere. But the only reason that
this was made ungrammatical is that you need more than
one word of lookahead to resolve it. PEG can handle it easily.
Shouldn't we make it grammatical with the PEG grammar?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 19:26 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 10:34:32AM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote:
> Re: BPFK Section: Termsets
>
> Consider this sentence:
>
> *mi klama ge le zarci le zdani gi le zdani le zarci
> "I go to the market from the house and to the
> house from the market"
>
> It is currently ungrammatical, to make it grammatical we have to
> add a nu'i somewhere. But the only reason that this was made
> ungrammatical is that you need more than one word of lookahead to
> resolve it. PEG can handle it easily. Shouldn't we make it
> grammatical with the PEG grammar?

Doesn't that entirely obviate nu'i ?

This is probably not a bad thing, but I just want to check.

-Robin

wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:

> Shouldn't we make it grammatical with the PEG grammar?

No.

--
"They tried to pierce your heart John Cowan
with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
wound. If they had succeeded, you would http://www.reutershealth.com
become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord." --Gandalf

Posted by rlpowell on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 19:27 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:01:41PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
>
> > Shouldn't we make it grammatical with the PEG grammar?
>
> No.

Umm, *because*?

In fourty-eight *THOUSAND* lines of IRC, there are *SIX* instances
ce'e, nu'i, nu'u and pe'e. That's *combined*. I can't imagine a reason to

• not* build in a work around for an aspect of the language that is
• that* hard to use.

Here they are:

15:18 <fracture> nu'ige zo by. .a zo beiste nu'ugi zo zy. .a zo zgana toji'a
zo viska toi

Parses.

15:27 <fracture> liste nu'ugi zo zy. zo zgana toji'a zo viska toi

Does not parse.

10 Apr 2004 14:49:58 <rlpowell> simsa zo pe'e

quoted, not actually used.

06 Dec 2004 00:41:01 <rlpowell> .i pilno lo nandu zenba tadji ce'e lo certu
kelci pe'e je lo nandu jdika tadji ce'e lo to'e certu kelci

Parses (took me 10 minutes to get that working before I pasted it to the channel).

16 Dec 2004 12:19:00 <rlpowell> zbasu da ce'e de pe'e je di ce'e do

Parses.

16 Dec 2004 12:19:57 <rlpowell> zbasu nu'i da de nu'u pe'e je nu'i di do

Parses.

So of the six, two people used it, 5 of them count as usage, and 4
of those parse. Of those four, three are known for a fact to only
parse because I tested them offline first; I know this because it
was last month.

That's a pretty crappy track record.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Posted by rab.spir on Tue 11 of Jan, 2005 19:27 GMT posts: 152

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 02:01:41PM -0500, John Cowan wrote:
> wikidiscuss@lojban.org scripsit:
>
> > Shouldn't we make it grammatical with the PEG grammar?
>
> No.

Why not?
--
Rob Speer

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:20:31AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> In fourty-eight *THOUSAND* lines of IRC, there are *SIX* instances
> ce'e, nu'i, nu'u and pe'e. That's *combined*. I can't imagine a reason to
> *not* build in a work around for an aspect of the language that is
> *that* hard to use.

The article I wrote on nanba for wikipedia features termsets.
(http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanba)

I think I even used them right!

But it did take me 10 or 15 minutes, at least, of rereading the CLL
and feeding them into jbofi'e to make sure it was right.

--
Jay Kominek <jkominek@miranda.org>

Re: BPFK Section: Termsets

Consider this sentence:

*mi klama ge le zarci le zdani gi le zdani le zarci
"I go to the market from the house and to the
house from the market"

It is currently ungrammatical, to make it grammatical we
have to add a nu'i somewhere. But the only reason that
this was made ungrammatical is that you need more than
one word of lookahead to resolve it. PEG can handle it easily.
Shouldn't we make it grammatical with the PEG grammar?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Posted by xorxes on Wed 12 of Jan, 2005 02:46 GMT posts: 1912

> In fourty-eight *THOUSAND* lines of IRC, there are *SIX* instances
> ce'e, nu'i, nu'u and pe'e. That's *combined*. I can't imagine a reason to
> *not* build in a work around for an aspect of the language that is
> *that* hard to use.
>
> Here they are:
>
> 15:18 <fracture> nu'ige zo by. .a zo beiste nu'ugi zo zy. .a zo zgana
> toji'a
> zo viska toi
>
> Parses.

This is the only relevant instance for the structure involved,
which is forethought connection of termsets. All the others
use afterthought connectives with pe'e, which would not be
replaced by ge.

That instance parses, but it is not the intended use of nu'ige.
In that example, you would get the exact same meaning without
the nu'i: {ge zo by. .a zo beiste gi zo zy. .a zo zgana}
is already grammatical and has the same meaning, everything
is part of the same term.

So in the fourty-eight thousand lines of IRC there are zero
instances of proper {nu'i gek term term /nu'u/ gik term term
/nu'u/}.

I think the PEG rule would have to be something like this:

gek-termset <- gek terms-gik-terms

terms-gik-terms <- term (gik / terms-gik-terms) term

That way the number of terms grabbed after the gik would be
the same as the number of terms between gek and gik.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

On Tuesday 11 January 2005 16:03, jkominek@miranda.org wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:20:31AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > In fourty-eight *THOUSAND* lines of IRC, there are *SIX* instances
> > ce'e, nu'i, nu'u and pe'e. That's *combined*. I can't imagine a reason
> > to *not* build in a work around for an aspect of the language that is
> > *that* hard to use.
>
> The article I wrote on nanba for wikipedia features termsets.
> (http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanba)

One more:
cire cilce carce jarco ce'e reci cilce carce cu jarco
..i cire cilce carce jarco cu jarco reci cilce carce
..ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco?

mu'omi'e pier.
--
le xruki le ginxre xrixruba xu xrula cu xrani?

Posted by rlpowell on Thu 13 of Jan, 2005 18:04 GMT posts: 14214

On Wed, Jan 12, 2005 at 08:01:37PM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 January 2005 16:03, jkominek@miranda.org wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 11:20:31AM -0800, Robin Lee Powell
> > wrote:
> > > In fourty-eight *THOUSAND* lines of IRC, there are *SIX*
> > > instances ce'e, nu'i, nu'u and pe'e. That's *combined*. I
> > > can't imagine a reason to *not* build in a work around for an
> > > aspect of the language that is *that* hard to use.
> >
> > The article I wrote on nanba for wikipedia features termsets.
> > (http://jbo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanba)
>
> One more:
>
> cire cilce carce jarco ce'e reci cilce carce cu jarco
> .i cire cilce carce jarco cu jarco reci cilce carce
> .ije'i reci cilce carce cu se jarco cire cilce carce jarco?

No forethought, though.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Posted by rlpowell on Sat 29 of Jan, 2005 02:47 GMT posts: 14214

On Tue, Jan 11, 2005 at 12:55:35PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> So in the fourty-eight thousand lines of IRC there are zero
> instances of proper {nu'i gek term term /nu'u/ gik term term
> /nu'u/}.
>
> I think the PEG rule would have to be something like this:
>
> gek-termset <- gek terms-gik-terms
>
> terms-gik-terms <- term (gik / terms-gik-terms) term
>
> That way the number of terms grabbed after the gik would be the
> same as the number of terms between gek and gik.

Done.

mi klama nu'i ge le zarci le briju nu'u gi le zdani le ckule

and

mi klama ge le zarci le briju gi le zdani le ckule

now both parse in basically exactly the same way.

Note that nu'i...nu'u termsets are still perfectly valid.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/