[YG Conlang Archives] > [jboske group] > messages [Date Index] [Thread Index] >
On Wed, Apr 30, 2003 at 05:59:14AM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote:
>
> la djan cusku di'e
>
> > I should rather say that it sometimes produces the wrong answer, notably
> > with the way it groups multiple sumti and the way it handles numbers,
> > but most of the time its parse tree is quite sensible.
> > It just is not *determinative*.
>
> One particularly jarring case where it fails is in things
> like {mi na broda gi'e brode}, which is parsed as
> {mi (na broda) gi'e (brode)} instead of
> {mi na (broda gi'e brode)}. This is particularly bad because
> the grammar goes to pains to produce the wrong parse,
> when it would be straightforward to produce the correct one.
> In fact, I think the current parse should be the correct one,
> but for some reason it was decided that the other interpretation
> is correct, against the parser. Either the grammar or the
> interpretation should be fixed in this case, the status quo
> is nuts.
Huh?!
mi na broda gi'e broda meaning na (broda gi'e broda) would be nuts.
The na is part of the selbri.
--
Jordan DeLong - fracture@hidden.email
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
Attachment:
binu5dee1amxU.bin
Description: application/ygp-stripped