BPFK To-Do: Difference between revisions

From Lojban
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(→‎Unsorted issues: Adding "{ro} and existential import" to the list.)
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
Dei zo'u ra'u ge no'e se ganzu gi liste lo poi'i kanpe lo du'u li'ai BPFK ca su'o balvi cu ei se cuntu ke'a. I e'e do jmina fi ku.
This is basically a free-form list of things the BPFK will eventually have to deal with, sooner or later. Feel free to add to it.
==Ni'o lo cmeta==
*[[BPFK_Procedures#Voting|Design and implement a better voting system]]
*I mi'e [[la gleki|la Gleki]]:
**I dei noi papri cu kalsa.
**I ei gau ku lo nu casnu do'e lo drata me BPFK papri co'a pagbu.


*[[BPFK_Procedures#Voting|I ei platu gi'e cazgau su'o cnino poi cmicu'a ciste.]]
* Work through [[Issues with checkpointed BPFK sections]] and resolve everything.
* I ro la'o gy [[Issues with checkpointed BPFK sections]] gy zo'u: ei lanli gi'e dafyfa'i.
* At some point, the BPFK will need to approve the changes in [[CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata|CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata]], as the CLL is part of the baseline. -[[rlpowell|rlpowell]]
* I mi'e [[User:Robin Lee Powell|la .Camgusmis.]]:
* [[User:Robin Lee Powell|la camgusmis]]:
** I ei ca su'o balvi BPFK zanru lo nu stika pe [[CLL, aka Reference Grammar, Errata|lo cfiste be la Xuncku]]. I ki'u bo la Xuncku cu jai cuntu lo gafyfantymanri.
**The English word for xagri is 'reed', which is amazingly dumb. It needs to be changed to 'reed instrument' or 'woodwind' or something.
* I mi'e [[User:Robin Lee Powell|la .Camgusmis.]]:
*[[User:xorxes|xorxes]]:
**I glico gloso zo "xagri" fa zo'oi "reed" xoi spaji nu bebna. I ei basti fa zoi gy "reed instrument" gy ja zo'oi "woodwind" ja lo simsa.
**Consider the grammar proposals listed in [[zasni gerna cenba vreji|zasni gerna cenba vreji]]
*I mi'e la [[User:xorxes|.Xorxes.]]:
** Ei pensi gi'e jdice da vau lo se stidi poi se skicu do'e la [[zasni gerna cenba vreji|Zasni Gerna Cenba Vreji]].


==Ni'o lo gerna srana poi ei jai se jdice==
----
I
* lu {dunda ti mi} li'u jo'u lo si'o za'e .opservative kei
* lu {mi broda fa do} li'u
* lu {fi do vecnu ti} li'u
* lu {do dunda be ti mi} li'u
* lu {lo nu brode ba brodo} li'u
* lu {jai frili fai ma} li'u
* lu {lo ti broda} li'u noi jdice lo du'u ke'a turbaro mo'oi kau me lu {lo broda pe ti} li'u jo'u lu {lo broda ne ti} li'u jo'u lu {lo broda ku pe ti} li'u jo'u lu {lo broda ku ne ti} li'u ku'o
* xu zo {ce'u} snipa pe'a zo {su'u} .i xu fancuka fa tu'a lo ro moi sumti pe zo su'u .i xu na da'i rinka lo nu nandu fa lo ka logji jo'u zmiku jimpe


==Ni'o lo srana be lo vlaste==
* Grammar points to be decided upon
* I ei lo gimste zo'u xagzengau tu'a lo valsi se cuxna pe lo velcki gi'e va'o zengau lo sranysi'u lo ka manfo. I ei zukte tu'a lo gismu cfiste.
** {ti citka be mi}
** (to sa'a lo gismu cfiste ma zvati mi'e [[User:Cirko|la Cirko]] toi)
** {lo nu brode ba brodo}
*** [[https://mw.lojban.org/papri/BPFK_Section:_gismu_Issues Gismu Issues]] jo'u [[https://mw.lojban.org/papri/gismu_list_errata Gismu list errata]]
** {fi do vecnu ti}
* I ei ro lo cmavo cu se vlavelcki su'o uenzi be lo lojbo
** {jai frili fai ma}
* I ei ro lo cipra gismu zo'u jdice lo du'u xu kau co'a catni se zanru
** {mi broda fa do}
* I ei ro lo cnino cmavo se stidi zo'u jdice lo du'u xu kau inda tu'a su'o ca'irselzau tarmi


==Ni'o lo srana be lo sumti klesi==
* Improve the BPFK definition for {ji'i} (see [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/XXO1L7zKGQE/VpgQ9JUfHBMJ this related discussion])
* I ei casnu lo si'o sumti klesi. I mu'a lo si'o mo'e ce'u da ka'e sumti ce'u noi zilkai.
* Go through the gismu list and improve wordings as well as increase consistency between gismu where possible. Go through gismu errata list.
* I ei ciksi tu'a lo te sumti lu'u poi mo'a va'e lo ka se ciksi je pe mu'u lo re moi pe zo "skari".
** "at location" places in many gismu seem totally irrelevant to the relation. e.g. ckule, cange, malsi ... Should they be removed?
==Ni'o lo srana be lo te sumti stura==
* Decide how to fill "by standard" places
* I lo du'u lo bridi je lo zilkai vu'o poi lu'e ke'a se pagbu zo "kau" cu turbaro ma kau
* Formalize the tense system
* I so'i gismu zo'u lo sumti poi se zvati su'o lo drata sumti zo'u simlu co mulno co srana be na bei lo smuni. I ei pei gau co'u sumti?
* I ei jdice lo du'u ma kau smuni zoi gy "by standard" gy pe lo gismu vlavelcki
==Predicate interactions issues==
Includes sumtcita (since they are compressed predicates)
* Formalize fi'o and BAI. Currently they are all broken and terrible. Some BAI might need to be killed or heavily redefined to make sense / be useful. for fi'o there are two options... there are infinitely many predicates, so it's simply not possible to define interaction of fi'o with every predicate seperately. therefore i propose to use a single formula that works for all fi'o clauses. BAI can be considered special in that they are more precisely defined and don't need this general solution. (bau = fi'o se baupli). this means that the fi'o transformation of tags is but an approximation, not a full equivalence. co'e only word that is general enough
* Formalize fi'o and BAI. Currently they are all broken and terrible. Some BAI might need to be killed or heavily redefined to make sense / be useful. for fi'o there are two options... there are infinitely many predicates, so it's simply not possible to define interaction of fi'o with every predicate seperately. therefore i propose to use a single formula that works for all fi'o clauses. BAI can be considered special in that they are more precisely defined and don't need this general solution. (bau = fi'o se baupli). this means that the fi'o transformation of tags is but an approximation, not a full equivalence. co'e only word that is general enough
==Mekso issues==
* Type discussion. mono- vs polymorphism
* Improve the BPFK definition for {ji'i} (see [https://groups.google.com/d/msg/lojban/XXO1L7zKGQE/VpgQ9JUfHBMJ this related discussion])
* Lojban definitions of every cmavo
* Deciding upon the meaning of {ni}, and how to express amounts (zenba2, barda2, cnano2…)
* Consider experimental gismu to be made official (e.g. kanpe, kibro, etc)
* – sei [[User:Spheniscine|la Zipcpi]] do'e lo CLL cfiste cu cusku – ju'u is in VUhU. It should be of the type PA. Notice how {pi} and {ni'u} and {ka'o} and {ci'i} and {fi'u} are all of type {pa}, so they can go in a numerical literal between digits. especially {ka'o}, which can separate the real part and imaginary part to make a complex literal, and similarly {su'o} and {su'e} can separate numbers to make intervals.
* Consider proposed cmavo and see if they warrant an official form
* I ei lanli lo ro mekso nu sampygau kei gi'e jdice lo du'u ma kau noi gunma cu ro pa mei lo prane [https://github.com/guskant/gerna_cipra/blob/master/zantufa-1.9999.js.peg#L290] [https://github.com/Ilmen-vodhr/ilmentufa/blob/master/camxes-exp.js.peg#L346]
 
==Unsorted issues==
* Formalize the tense system (?)
* CAhA as sumtcita
* CAhA as sumtcita
* scope weirdness in [[BPFK Section: Aspect|ZAhO definitions]] ("broda ba'o lo nu brode ~= ba'o broda ca lo nu brode"??)
* subjunctivity formalization
* subjunctivity formalization
* position ne inner rel is outer with LE, but inner (part of name) with LA. is this desirable? (what if LE-LA merge goes through, still desirable?)
* position ne inner rel is outer with LE, but inner (part of name) with LA. is this desirable? (what if LE-LA merge goes through, still desirable?)
* {ro} and existential import
* scope of NA
* scope of NA
* scope of ko, UI, ma
* tu'a lo jei lu na'e gerku li'u smudra va'o lo nu lu to'e gerku li'u na smudra cu .e'u poi'i jdice ke'a gi'a jai gau zilzena fai lo ni ke'a jmifrili
* na'e ko'a
* na'e ko'a
* make the PEG the official grammar.  
* make the PEG the official grammar.  
* add uy and iy as BY
* add uy and iy as BY
* add a new FAhA that means "along a path". I suggest {pu'a} from {pluta} (ditch the {pluka} BAI). {mi cadzu pu'a lo rirxe}. {pu'a} has almost no usage (8 times and only on IRC)
* add a new FAhA that means "along a path". I suggest {pu'a} from {pluta} (ditch the {pluka} BAI). {mi cadzu pu'a lo rirxe}. {pu'a} has almost no usage (8 times and only on IRC)
** [[la gleki]]:
**zo vi'i
*** it's {{jvs|vi'i}}
* define {lo >1 da} with unbound da
* discuss the jvojva
* discuss the jvojva
* Have a discussion about the status of dialects.
* Have a discussion about the status of dialects.
* Xu zo zo'e ka'e sinxa lo na'e konstanta? I mu'a lu "Mi na citka" li'u zo'u: xu ei da se pensi gi'e poi'i xusra lo du'u na citka ke'a? I ji ka'e smuni fa lo du'u lo cusku cu citka no da?
** I ji'a zo zi'o zo'u: ei pei ri se smuni su'o satcymau? I lo nu da'i ge lo CLL smuni gi lo cnino cu poi'i jinvi lo du'u ke'a inda lo ka se valsi zo'u: zo zi'i za'o na se smudu'a.
* Discuss logical connection of sentences with different illocutionay force
{{irci|xorxes|This reminds me that, if I recall correctly, we had different views when working on Xorban on whether it makes sense for two sentences with different illocutionary force to be logically connected. For me logical connection only applies to bare propositions, and not to propositions-in-use.}}
{{irci|And|My palpably deteriorating memory isn't pinging, so even if you recall correctly, I still don't. I do think that illocutionary operators can themselves be arguments of predicates (e.g. "Is it dinner time yet, for I'm hungry") tho, and since I take logical connectives to be predicates it follows that in principle I must allow illocutionary operators to be logically connected. I'm not sure how this bears on the current discussion, tho.}}
{{irci|xorxes|Yes, that was a good example. My view was that the underlying logic for that is:
# I (hereby) ask whether it is dinner time yet.
# The reason for my asking whether it is dinner time yet is that I am hungry.
1 and 2 are different propositions, but 2 happens to contain 1. Since both illocutionary acts make use of the same proposition, it is convenient to utter the sentence expressing that proposition only once, but that doesn't make the first illocutionary act (as opposed to just its propositional content) an argument of the predicate used in the second act.}}
* «lu jai nandu fai lo ka broda li'u» zo'u xu lo nu pilno zo se cu sarcu .i «lu fai lo ka broda li'u» ji «lu fai lo ka se broda li'u» drani
* zo vo'a zo'u ma smuni «lu mi .e do djica lo nu vo'a klama li'u»


== Review change proposals ==
Review change proposals
* [http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/how-to-substantially-simplify-the-lojban-connective-system-my-connective-system Simplified connectives]
* [http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/how-to-substantially-simplify-the-lojban-connective-system-my-connective-system Simplified connectives]
* [http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new_soi soi]
* [http://mw.lojban.org/papri/new_soi soi]
Line 90: Line 46:
* abolition of rafsi assignments [http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/how-to-get-rid-of-formal-rafsi]
* abolition of rafsi assignments [http://selpahi.weebly.com/lojban/how-to-get-rid-of-formal-rafsi]
* cmevla-brivla merge
* cmevla-brivla merge
* I lo nu lo brivla canlu cu banro (to mu'a lo nu zo "sipnybzu" co'a brivla toi)

Revision as of 14:56, 19 November 2015

This is basically a free-form list of things the BPFK will eventually have to deal with, sooner or later. Feel free to add to it.

  • Grammar points to be decided upon
    • {ti citka be mi}
    • {lo nu brode ba brodo}
    • {fi do vecnu ti}
    • {jai frili fai ma}
    • {mi broda fa do}
  • Improve the BPFK definition for {ji'i} (see this related discussion)
  • Go through the gismu list and improve wordings as well as increase consistency between gismu where possible. Go through gismu errata list.
    • "at location" places in many gismu seem totally irrelevant to the relation. e.g. ckule, cange, malsi ... Should they be removed?
  • Decide how to fill "by standard" places
  • Formalize the tense system
  • Formalize fi'o and BAI. Currently they are all broken and terrible. Some BAI might need to be killed or heavily redefined to make sense / be useful. for fi'o there are two options... there are infinitely many predicates, so it's simply not possible to define interaction of fi'o with every predicate seperately. therefore i propose to use a single formula that works for all fi'o clauses. BAI can be considered special in that they are more precisely defined and don't need this general solution. (bau = fi'o se baupli). this means that the fi'o transformation of tags is but an approximation, not a full equivalence. co'e only word that is general enough
  • Type discussion. mono- vs polymorphism
  • Lojban definitions of every cmavo
  • Consider experimental gismu to be made official (e.g. kanpe, kibro, etc)
  • Consider proposed cmavo and see if they warrant an official form
  • CAhA as sumtcita
  • subjunctivity formalization
  • position ne inner rel is outer with LE, but inner (part of name) with LA. is this desirable? (what if LE-LA merge goes through, still desirable?)
  • scope of NA
  • na'e ko'a
  • make the PEG the official grammar.
  • add uy and iy as BY
  • add a new FAhA that means "along a path". I suggest {pu'a} from {pluta} (ditch the {pluka} BAI). {mi cadzu pu'a lo rirxe}. {pu'a} has almost no usage (8 times and only on IRC)
    • zo vi'i
  • discuss the jvojva
  • Have a discussion about the status of dialects.

Review change proposals

Retrieved from "https://mw-live.lojban.org/index.php?title=BPFK_To-Do&oldid=118186"