Difference between revisions of "internal grammar of tags"

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m (Gleki moved page jbocre: Internal grammar of tags to Internal grammar of tags without leaving a redirect: Text replace - "jbocre: ([A-Z])" to "$1")
 
(10 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
+
{{se inspekte/en}}{{jbocre/en}}
'''Tense grammar simplification proposal''', by [[User:xorxes|xorxes]]
+
Tense grammar simplification proposal, by [[User:xorxes|la xorxes]].
 
+
=Current grammar=
=== Current grammar: ===
+
<pre>
 
 
^
 
 
 
 
tense-modal = simple-tense-modal # | FIhO # selbri /FEhU#/  
 
tense-modal = simple-tense-modal # | FIhO # selbri /FEhU#/  
  
simple-tense-modal = [[jbocre: NAhE|NAhE]] [[jbocre: SE|SE]] BAI [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] [[jbocre: KI|KI]]
+
simple-tense-modal = [NAhE] [SE] BAI [NAI] [KI]  
 
+
| [NAhE] (time [space] | space [time]) & CAhA [KI]  
| [[jbocre: NAhE|NAhE]] (time [[space|space]]  space [[time|time]]) &amp; CAhA [[jbocre: KI|KI]]
+
| KI  
 
 
| KI
 
 
 
 
| CUhE
 
| CUhE
  
time = ZI &amp; time-offset ... &amp; ZEhA [[jbocre: PU [jbocre: NAI|NAI]] &amp; interval-property ...
+
time = ZI & time-offset ... & ZEhA [[PU [[NAI]] & interval-property ...
  
time-offset = PU [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] [[jbocre: ZI|ZI]]
+
time-offset = PU [NAI] [ZI]
  
space = VA &amp; space-offset ... &amp; space-interval &amp; (MOhI space-offset)
+
space = VA & space-offset ... & space-interval & (MOhI space-offset)
  
space-offset = FAhA [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] [[jbocre: VA|VA]]
+
space-offset = FAhA [NAI] [VA]
  
space-interval = [[jbocre: VEhA &amp; VIhA) [jbocre: FAhA [jbocre: NAI|NAI]]) &amp; space-int-props
+
space-interval = ((VEhA & VIhA) [[FAhA [[NAI]]) & space-int-props
  
 
space-int-props = (FEhE interval-property) ...
 
space-int-props = (FEhE interval-property) ...
  
interval-property = number ROI [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]]  TAhE [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] | ZAhO [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]]
+
interval-property = number ROI [NAI] | TAhE [NAI] | ZAhO [NAI]
 
+
</pre>
^
+
=Proposed grammar=
 
+
<pre>
=== Proposed grammar: ===
+
tense-modal = ([NAhE] [SE] tag-unit [NAI] #) ...  
 
 
^
 
 
 
tense-modal = ([[jbocre: NAhE|NAhE]] [[jbocre: SE|SE]] tag-unit [[jbocre: NAI|NAI]] #) ...
 
 
 
tag-unit = BAI
 
 
 
| CAhA
 
 
 
| CUhE
 
 
 
| KI
 
 
 
| ZI
 
 
 
| PU
 
 
 
| VA
 
 
 
| [[jbocre: MOhI|MOhI]] FAhA
 
 
 
| ZEhA
 
 
 
| VEhA
 
 
 
| VIhA
 
 
 
| [[jbocre: FEhE|FEhE]] number ROI
 
 
 
| [[jbocre: FEhE|FEhE]] TAhE
 
 
 
| [[jbocre: FEhE|FEhE]] ZAhO
 
 
 
| FIhO # selbri /FEhU/
 
 
 
^
 
 
 
=== Rationale: ===
 
 
 
==== SE-conversion ====
 
 
 
Every tag-unit can be used as a tag, and therefore as a connective. It is arbitrary and inconvenient that SE is currently disallowed with some tags.
 
 
 
==== NAhE ====
 
 
 
{NAhE PU}, {NAhE CAhA} and {NAhE PU CAhA} are all allowed, but{NAhE PU NAhE CAhA} is not. This is arbitrary and inconvenient. Similarly for other combinations.
 
 
 
==== Order of units ====
 
 
 
{co'a na'o broda} "starting to typically broda" is allowed, but {na'o co'a broda} "typically starting to broda" is not. It will be accepted by the parser, but parsed as {na'oku co'a broda}. Similarly for all other order restrictions. Note: arbitrary combinations of tag-units are already allowed in selbri-tags as long as there is an intervening {ja'a}, for example: {na'o ja'a co'a broda} is allowed, without ku's.
 
 
 
==== NAI ====
 
 
 
There's no good reason to allow it selectively here and there instead of everywhere.
 
 
 
==== Backwards compatibility ====
 
 
 
Fully compatible. Everything currently grammatical remains grammatical.
 
 
 
--------------------
 
 
 
=== Notes ===
 
 
 
#In the original proposal I had kept PU [[jbocre: ZI|ZI]], FAhA [[jbocre: VA|VA]], ZEhA[[jbocre: PU|PU]], VEhA [[jbocre: FAhA|FAhA]] and VIhA [[jbocre: FAhA|FAhA]] as separate forms because I thought their compound meaning might follow special compositional rules. I don't think that is the case, though. Just as the Imaginary Journey composition follows the ordinary left-to-right scope rule, these componds follow the rule too. For example {ze'u pu} indicates a long duration of an event in the past of some reference point, where the event is in the past for the whole duration.
 
 
 
#Originally I had only redefined the simple-tense-modal, but since the exclusion of FIhO-modals from the general case was due to the LR(1) restriction which no longer applies, we can now generalize the full tense-modal.
 
 
 
--------------------
 
  
(comments)
+
tag-unit = BAI
 +
| CAhA
 +
| CUhE
 +
| KI
 +
| ZI
 +
| PU
 +
| VA
 +
| [MOhI] FAhA
 +
| ZEhA
 +
| VEhA
 +
| VIhA
 +
| [FEhE] number ROI
 +
| [FEhE] TAhE
 +
| [FEhE] ZAhO
 +
| FIhO # selbri /FEhU/
 +
</pre>
 +
=Rationale=
  
And's:
+
=== SE-conversion ===
 +
Every tag-unit can be used as a tag, and therefore as a connective. It is arbitrary and inconvenient that SE is currently disallowed with some tags.
  
SE: Absolutely, yes.
+
=== NAhE ===
 +
NAhE PU, NAhE CAhA and NAhE PU CAhA are all allowed, but NAhE PU NAhE CAhA is not. This is arbitrary and inconvenient. Similarly for other combinations.  
  
NAhE: Yes.
+
===Order of units===
 +
{{vlapoi|co'a|na'o|broda}} (''starting to typically broda'') is allowed, but {{vlapoi|na'o|co'a|broda}} (''typically starting to broda'') is not. It will be accepted by the parser, but parsed as {{vlapoi|na'oku|co'a|broda}}. Similarly for all other order restrictions. Note: arbitrary combinations of tag-units are already allowed in selbri-tags as long as there is an intervening {{vlapoi|ja'a}}, for example: {{vlapoi|na'o|ja'a|co'a|broda}} is allowed, without {{jvs|ku}}s.
  
Order: Is {lo na'o(ku) co'a broda} grammatical? If not, then that is an argument in favour of your proposal. If it is grammatical, then I think it would be better if all selbri tags were instead sumti tags, since otherwise we have a syntactic distinction with no semantic import.
+
=== NAI ===
 +
There's no good reason to allow it selectively here and there instead of everywhere.  
  
*{lo na'oku co'a broda} is not grammatical. {lo na'o ja'a co'a broda} is grammatical. But having to remember for which combinations you need to insert ja'a is absurd.
+
=Backwards compatibility=
**OK, then. I am in favour.
 
  
NAI: Certainly the status quo seems arbitrary. But IMO NAI is a Bad Thing when it contributes to logical form, because it doesn't follow the usual scope rules. Allowing NAI everywhere is probably better than allowing it arbitrarily, but better would be to disallow it everywhere except for places where na can't do the job.
+
Fully compatible. Everything currently grammatical remains grammatical.  
  
*NAI only affects the meaning of the previous word. For example {ru'inai} means "intermittently". It follows the usual scope rule for UIs, the scope is always the previous word. If you prefer, the complex word+nai is a new word with a new meaning. The new meaning is not strictly compositional, but it is usually easy to guess.
+
=Notes=
**So it functions like NAhE, then? I agree the status quo is an ugly mess, but the risk of fixing it by allowing NAI anywhere is that we end up with a semantic mess. Are we (BF) really going to say for every cmavo what it means when followed by NAI? Or is it like a tanru, dependent on glorking?
+
# In the original proposal I had kept <nowiki>PU [ZI], FAhA [VA], ZEhA [PU], VEhA [FAhA] and VIhA [FAhA]</nowiki> as separate forms because I thought their compound meaning might follow special compositional rules. I don't think that is the case, though. Just as the Imaginary Journey composition follows the ordinary left-to-right scope rule, these compounds follow the rule too. For example, {{vlapoi|ze'u|pu}} indicates a long duration of an event in the past of some reference point, where the event is in the past for the whole duration.
 +
# Originally I had only redefined the simple-tense-modal, but since the exclusion of FIhO-modals from the general case was due to the LR(1) restriction which no longer applies, we can now generalize the full tense-modal.
  
***I will restrict it, for the purposes of this proposal, to words in tags. NAI is already allowed after most of them anyway, so we already have to do that.
+
=Comments=
 +
*[[User:Fagri|la fagri]]
 +
** Are you sure PU [ZI] and the others don't follow special rules?  Under CLL, {pu zu broda} means "A long time in the past, broda occurs" but if you try to separate it out into a two-step imaginary journey, you get "In the past of a long time away from now, broda occurs".  If you take your "long time away" walk in the future-ward direction, then from that vantage point, {pu} encompasses the present and the near future.
 +
*[[And Rosta]]:
 +
**SE: Absolutely, yes.
 +
**NAhE: Yes.
 +
**Order: Is '''lo na'o(ku) co'a broda''' grammatical? If not, then that is an argument in favor of your proposal. If it is grammatical, then I think it would be better if all selbri tags were instead sumti tags, since otherwise we have a syntactic distinction with no semantic import.
 +
*** '''lo na'oku co'a broda''' is not grammatical. '''lo na'o ja'a co'a broda''' is grammatical. But having to remember for which combinations you need to insert '''ja'a''' is absurd.
 +
**** OK, then. I am in favour.
 +
**NAI: Certainly the status quo seems arbitrary. But IMO NAI is a Bad Thing when it contributes to logical form, because it doesn't follow the usual scope rules. Allowing NAI everywhere is probably better than allowing it arbitrarily, but better would be to disallow it everywhere except for places where na can't do the job.
 +
***NAI only affects the meaning of the previous word. For example {{vlapoi|ru'inai}} means "intermittently". It follows the usual scope rule for UIs, the scope is always the previous word. If you prefer, the complex word+nai is a new word with a new meaning. The new meaning is not strictly compositional, but it is usually easy to guess.
 +
**** So it functions like NAhE, then? I agree the status quo is an ugly mess, but the risk of fixing it by allowing NAI anywhere is that we end up with a semantic mess. Are we (BF) really going to say for every cmavo what it means when followed by NAI? Or is it like a tanru, dependent on glorking?
 +
***** I will restrict it, for the purposes of this proposal, to words in tags. NAI is already allowed after most of them anyway, so we already have to do that.

Latest revision as of 07:35, 16 May 2018

Tense grammar simplification proposal, by la xorxes.

Current grammar

tense-modal = simple-tense-modal # | FIhO # selbri /FEhU#/ 

simple-tense-modal = [NAhE] [SE] BAI [NAI] [KI] 
| [NAhE] (time [space] | space [time]) & CAhA [KI] 
| KI 
| CUhE

time = ZI & time-offset ... & ZEhA [[PU [[NAI]] & interval-property ...

time-offset = PU [NAI] [ZI]

space = VA & space-offset ... & space-interval & (MOhI space-offset)

space-offset = FAhA [NAI] [VA]

space-interval = ((VEhA & VIhA) [[FAhA [[NAI]]) & space-int-props

space-int-props = (FEhE interval-property) ...

interval-property = number ROI [NAI] | TAhE [NAI] | ZAhO [NAI]

Proposed grammar

tense-modal = ([NAhE] [SE] tag-unit [NAI] #) ... 

tag-unit = BAI 
| CAhA 
| CUhE 
| KI 
| ZI 
| PU 
| VA 
| [MOhI] FAhA 
| ZEhA 
| VEhA 
| VIhA 
| [FEhE] number ROI 
| [FEhE] TAhE 
| [FEhE] ZAhO 
| FIhO # selbri /FEhU/

Rationale

SE-conversion

Every tag-unit can be used as a tag, and therefore as a connective. It is arbitrary and inconvenient that SE is currently disallowed with some tags.

NAhE

NAhE PU, NAhE CAhA and NAhE PU CAhA are all allowed, but NAhE PU NAhE CAhA is not. This is arbitrary and inconvenient. Similarly for other combinations.

Order of units

co'a na'o broda (starting to typically broda) is allowed, but na'o co'a broda (typically starting to broda) is not. It will be accepted by the parser, but parsed as na'oku co'a broda. Similarly for all other order restrictions. Note: arbitrary combinations of tag-units are already allowed in selbri-tags as long as there is an intervening ja'a, for example: na'o ja'a co'a broda is allowed, without kus.

NAI

There's no good reason to allow it selectively here and there instead of everywhere.

Backwards compatibility

Fully compatible. Everything currently grammatical remains grammatical.

Notes

  1. In the original proposal I had kept PU [ZI], FAhA [VA], ZEhA [PU], VEhA [FAhA] and VIhA [FAhA] as separate forms because I thought their compound meaning might follow special compositional rules. I don't think that is the case, though. Just as the Imaginary Journey composition follows the ordinary left-to-right scope rule, these compounds follow the rule too. For example, ze'u pu indicates a long duration of an event in the past of some reference point, where the event is in the past for the whole duration.
  2. Originally I had only redefined the simple-tense-modal, but since the exclusion of FIhO-modals from the general case was due to the LR(1) restriction which no longer applies, we can now generalize the full tense-modal.

Comments

  • la fagri
    • Are you sure PU [ZI] and the others don't follow special rules? Under CLL, {pu zu broda} means "A long time in the past, broda occurs" but if you try to separate it out into a two-step imaginary journey, you get "In the past of a long time away from now, broda occurs". If you take your "long time away" walk in the future-ward direction, then from that vantage point, {pu} encompasses the present and the near future.
  • And Rosta:
    • SE: Absolutely, yes.
    • NAhE: Yes.
    • Order: Is lo na'o(ku) co'a broda grammatical? If not, then that is an argument in favor of your proposal. If it is grammatical, then I think it would be better if all selbri tags were instead sumti tags, since otherwise we have a syntactic distinction with no semantic import.
      • lo na'oku co'a broda is not grammatical. lo na'o ja'a co'a broda is grammatical. But having to remember for which combinations you need to insert ja'a is absurd.
        • OK, then. I am in favour.
    • NAI: Certainly the status quo seems arbitrary. But IMO NAI is a Bad Thing when it contributes to logical form, because it doesn't follow the usual scope rules. Allowing NAI everywhere is probably better than allowing it arbitrarily, but better would be to disallow it everywhere except for places where na can't do the job.
      • NAI only affects the meaning of the previous word. For example ru'inai means "intermittently". It follows the usual scope rule for UIs, the scope is always the previous word. If you prefer, the complex word+nai is a new word with a new meaning. The new meaning is not strictly compositional, but it is usually easy to guess.
        • So it functions like NAhE, then? I agree the status quo is an ugly mess, but the risk of fixing it by allowing NAI anywhere is that we end up with a semantic mess. Are we (BF) really going to say for every cmavo what it means when followed by NAI? Or is it like a tanru, dependent on glorking?
          • I will restrict it, for the purposes of this proposal, to words in tags. NAI is already allowed after most of them anyway, so we already have to do that.