From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Jul 22 15:40:58 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-beginners); Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:40:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1Dw6CQ-0008DR-Je for lojban-beginners-real@lojban.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:40:58 -0700 Received: from ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.43]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1Dw6CM-0008DG-Gk for lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 15:40:58 -0700 Received: from hypermetrics.com (cpe-66-68-164-156.austin.res.rr.com [66.68.164.156]) by ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with ESMTP id j6MMepgJ015668 for ; Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:40:51 -0500 (CDT) Message-ID: <42E175F3.10406@hypermetrics.com> Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:40:51 -0500 From: Hal Fulton User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20031114 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: A few questions... References: <42DDC358.5010302@hypermetrics.com> <200507210507.j6L57eTd000683@mole.e-mol.com> <42E0425B.6080108@hypermetrics.com> <200507221609.j6MG9wTd019991@mole.e-mol.com> In-Reply-To: <200507221609.j6MG9wTd019991@mole.e-mol.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 1626 X-Approved-By: hal9000@hypermetrics.com X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-original-sender: hal9000@hypermetrics.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-beginners@chain.digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-beginners Matt Arnold wrote: > Hal, > I'm all in favor of it. For each convention that is invented for diagramming, the question to be asked is how does it instruct the viewer and clarify the structure? There are hundreds of selma'o, which is too many to come up with a unique diagramming method for each one. I would recommend that we come up with diagramming methods for these more general categories of cmavo instead: > - Abstracts - Attitudinals - Connectives - Descriptors - Discursives - Keyboard (alphanumeric, {ro}, verbal punctuation, shifts, etc.) - Math expressions - Modals - Prosumti/bridi - Qualifiers (NAI, LAhE, NA, NAhE, LUhU) - Relativizers (clause/phrase) - Sentence Structure (TUhE, FA, TUhU, NUhI, FAhO, CEhE, FUhE, ZEI, ad infinitum) - Tenses - Vocatives > Perhaps even some of these can share a diagramming method, such as vocatives and attitudinals. OK... I would think that many/most of these could share diagramming styles. My rough ideas would be: 1. gismu + sumti as I showed already 2. articles and such go right along with the thing modified 3. cu goes under the main divider 4. parenthesis-type cmavo go on top of extra dividers 5. things that modify things on the main line branch off under them That probably leaves a million unanswered issues, of course. Hal