BPFK Section: Formal Grammar

For non-BPFK discussion of the formal grammar, see Grammar.

This section describes a proposed update to the Formal Grammar, defining the grammar in PEG rather than YACC. This section requires cleanup and a shepherd.

Proposed grammar changes

• Internal grammar of tags
• Move NAI to CAI

• Allow free modifiers anywhere
• Make sei more permissive

• Take away the official status of the YACC grammar, and instead make an official grammar in PEG
• onnectives + PU issues

Issues

• CLL 9.9, example 9.8: mi bai ke ge klama le zarci gi cadzu le bisli. Camxes' PEG sees this like mi bai ku ke ge klama le zarci gi cadzu le bisli. There doesn't appear to be a way to fill the tag in the gek-sentence production. Jbofihe and the official parser both get this right. Also relevant is example 18.15 from CLL 14.18: mi pu ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja. Jbofihe and the official parser both fail on this. Camxes sees it as mi pu ku ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja. Is this what is intended?
  • Good catch. I think what camxes does is the Right Thing™, and that the unreachable tag should just be eliminated from the grammar. mi'e xorxes

• egular suffixing rules and regular rules for creating lujvo.]
• ore formal grammar stuffs]

• ore formal issues (re: tosmabru check)]
• larity of assertion is necessary.

• nteraction of SE, NA, and JA.
• proposal about cmevla and elma'o LA.

• very old discussion about efaultuantifiers]or gadri].
• lah about sumti raising (you can probably ignore this).

• cu-like cmavo for terminators in general.
• hy x1 to the left?

• an we drop lerfu+namcu strings? At least, can we do that if we drop lots of mekso crap too? See that thread and the relevant bits of zasni gerna cenba vreji.
• The grammar has a difference between “operand” and “number” that probably isn't intentional; because of this, constructs like “mo'e zo'e” cannot be used where other numbers are allowed.