Lojban In General

Posted by florolf on Sat 05 of Dec, 2009 11:32 GMT posts: 10

When discussing selbri negation on IRC, we noticed the following:

The CLL states:
> Negations made with "na'e" or "na'eke" also
> include within their scope any sumti attached to the brivla or tanru
> with "be" or "bei". Such attached sumti are
> considered part of the brivla or tanru

Therefore, a sentence like {mi na'e klama be fu lo birka lo zarci}
should be grouped someway similar to {mi (na'e (klama be fu lo birka))
lo zarci}. camxes however outputs the follwing parse tree:
> sentence
> |- CMAVO
> | KOhA: mi
> |- bridiTail3
> |- tanruUnit1
> | |- tanruUnit2
> | | |- CMAVO
> | | | NAhE: na'e
> | | |- BRIVLA
> | | gismu: klama
> | |- linkargs1
> | |- CMAVO
> | | BE: be
> | |- term1
> | |- CMAVO
> | | FA: fu
> | |- sumti6
> | |- CMAVO
> | | LE: lo
> | |- BRIVLA
> | gismu: birka
> |- sumti6
> |- CMAVO
> | LE: lo
> |- BRIVLA
> gismu: zarci

Adding a {ke} ({mi na'e ke klama be fu lo birka lo zarci}) yields:
> sentence
> |- CMAVO
> | KOhA: mi
> |- bridiTail3
> |- tanruUnit2
> | |- CMAVO
> | | NAhE: na'e
> | |- tanruUnit2
> | |- CMAVO
> | | KE: ke
> | |- tanruUnit1
> | |- BRIVLA
> | | gismu: klama
> | |- linkargs1
> | |- CMAVO
> | | BE: be
> | |- term1
> | |- CMAVO
> | | FA: fu
> | |- sumti6
> | |- CMAVO
> | | LE: lo
> | |- BRIVLA
> | gismu: birka
> |- sumti6
> |- CMAVO
> | LE: lo
> |- BRIVLA
> gismu: zarci
Which seems to be more accurate with respect to to what the CLL says.

While this probably isn't a bug per se, it might still hint at some
faulty handling of precedence.

Maybe somebody who is more familiar with the PEG grammar can comment on
this?

mu'o mi'e florolf

PS: In case this turns out to be significant, it was xalbo (Adam) who
pointed this out in the first place.

To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.