History: Issues with checkpointed BPFK sections

Source of version: 5 (current)

This page is for concerns related to BPFK sections that are already passed and checkpointed. For BPFK sections that are __not__ passed, see the relevant section itself. !Tense sumtcita as of 16 Jun 2005 In ((BPFK Section: Tense sumtcita as of 16 Jun 2005)), the examples of ''di'o'' do not match the place structure of ''diklo''. E-mail from Yanis Batura: ~pp~ -------------------------------------- The definition and the examples seem very dubious for me, because {diklo} is defined as "x1 is local to x2; x1 is confined to locus x2 within range x3". {di'o} marks x1 of {diklo}, i. e. something that is local or confined to a locus. So {broda di'o da} means that there is / happens {broda} such that {da} is confined to its locus. Consider the example {mi se jibri le sampla di'o la ibubymym}. If {la ibumbum} is x1 of {diklo}, then {la ibumbum} is confined to a locus of where the person works with software. The sentence actually means that the whole IBM is local to where the person works with software! That is something different from "I work with software at IBM"... I hope you got my English. mi'e .ianis ~/pp~ Possible actions: # Rule that all usages of "di'o" is in error, and replace real examples with (correct) made-up ones. # Devise a lujvo that fits the place structure of "di'o" as it is actually used. arj (the original shepherd of the section) recommends alternative #1, as there are a handful of spatial tenses that could easily replace the use of "di'o" as intended. !Text Structure cmavo as of 11 Feb 2005 Jorge says: ~pp~ This comment is s bit misleading, as it suggests that there is something special about MAI that breaks LALR(1). But even if MAI were to be removed from the language, or made prefix, the problem with numbers would remain just the same, because you can't tell "number MOI", "number ROI" and "number /BOI/" appart from each other without indefinite lookahead, the same goes for "lerfu-string MOI" vs. "lerfu-string /BOI/", and I think compound tags break LALR(1) too. "A term is either a sumti or a sumti preceded by a tense or modal tag." Also: "na ku", "tag ku" and the most weird "fa ku" are terms. mu'o mi'e xorxes ~/pp~ !Digressives lojbab says: ~pp~ 1. sei I think it should be clarified what it means "no trailing sumti", and possibly rephrased because the "no trailing sumti" should be distinct from the rest of the definition (as it is, the wording suggests that there is some other word that starts a discursive bridi that CAN have trailing sumti). Putting it in 2 sentences would probably solve this. For the former comment, it should be noted that i ku'i fe'e mo'a roi trene sei mi kelci pilno be zo roi is perfectly legal - i.e. trailing sumti have to be attached with be/bei ~/pp~ * I suspect, strongly, that this can be fixed in the PEG, but haven't actually looked at it yet. Does anyone know the reason for this restriction? -- rlpowell