[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: sera'aku GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
la lojbab cusku di'e
> Date: Thu, 15 Feb 1996 05:43:53 -0500
> From: Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
> Subject: Re: sera'aku GEN: almost-PROPOSAL: intervals
> But seeing this example does cause something to click in my mind, that
> generalizes the problem. I do not yet have a solution. But what we seem
> to be facing is a situation where we want a sumti tcita to attach to, not one,
> but 2 sumti, each with a somewhat different relationship to the seubordinate
> bridi implied by the tcita. We already HAVE a parallle problem that is
> much clearer: what if you want to attach a 2nd sumti onto the implied
> relationship of a BAI tcita.
[...]
> I would be interested in grammar and cmavo proposals that address this type of
> multiple sumti linking, and I would rather see a new cmavo used for the link
> than overloading an existing one, unless you can clearly establish that the
> grammatical and semantic role is identical. I am NOT sure that relative
clauses
> are a model for this becuase they suggest that one of the sumti being attached
> to the tag is subordinate to the other, which is not the general case.
>
> Veijo has done an admirable job of turning ideas into concrete YACC proposals,
> even when he is not sure he favors the proposal. I commend these efforts,
> and would like to know in particular what he can do with this idea.
Thanks!
Here is a very general solution which passes YACC and thus shows
that almost anything goes because, if BO works as glue, then any
odd new cmavo will work.
modifier_82 : mod_head_490 gap_450
C | mod_head_490 linked_sumti_84
;
+ linked_sumti_84 : sumti_90
+ | linked_sumti_84 BO_508 sumti_90
+ ;
--
co'o mi'e veion
---------------------------------
.i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy.
---------------------------------