Omitting label for conjunction role

[jonathanrobie]

Currently, we allow the label to be omitted for the conjunction role. This is a convenient non-orthogonality. Should we require it? If we do, then instead of this:

    p Ἐν ἀρχῇ 
    v ἦν 
    s ὁ λόγος,
καὶ 
    s ὁ λόγος 
    v ἦν 
    p πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 
καὶ 
    p θεὸς 
    v ἦν 
    s ὁ λόγος.

we would require a label like cj before each conjunction:

    p Ἐν ἀρχῇ 
    v ἦν 
    s ὁ λόγος,
cj καὶ 
    s ὁ λόγος 
    v ἦν 
    p πρὸς τὸν θεόν, 
cj καὶ 
    p θεὸς 
    v ἦν 
    s ὁ λόγος.

This is a tradeoff between figure/ground for the reader and explicitness and ease of parsing.

Syntax highlighting can and should be used to keep the text more prominent.

[jtauber]

If I understand correctly, this relates to #9 in that requiring all lines to have a label obviates the need to distinguish labels with a prefix.

[jonathanrobie]

If I understand correctly, this relates to #9 in that requiring all lines to have a label obviates the need to distinguish labels with a prefix.

Exactly.

I'm writing a parser, and want to make sure that we have the ability to improve the language any way we need to. Tricky corners of parsing can come back to bite us, so keeping that clean is probably a good idea.

[mwpalmer]

I don't understand all of the implications for writing a parser (but that's okay - I don't have to write one!), but I like the consistency that would come from having everything labeled, even the conjunctions.

[jtauber]

So far in all the treedowning I've done, I've omitted the cj (unless postpositive) and I actually find it convenient both to author and read without the cj.

But I'm also okay with explicitly putting in the cj to make the overall format simpler to process.

[jtauber]

Note that #3 has a bare τῶν in the examples without a label too.