It seems that people are attempting to create a grammar for PA that pr= oduces all and ONLY those number strings that make sense. This is worthwhil= e, I think, but also unnecessary. We don't worry about which letters pr= oduce grammatical sentences, only which words. Also, given that Lojban'= s grammar treats all gismu equally and all members of a selma'o equally= , there is strong precedent=A0for not creating special grammar for PA.

=A0

stevo

On Thu, No= v 17, 2011 at 3:55 PM, la klaku <jakobnybonissen@gmail.com> wrote:
=

Pierre:

The change of {fi'u} *does* seem to break existing text, and that is bad. I could find no other PA, though, which needed to take both the
previous and the following number string. I'm also curious as to how many texts has a {fi'u}-fraction - perhaps they could be changed?
When alone, fi'u could easily be defined as the golden ratio, though this slightly breaks the consistensy. Still, how often does one use
that?

I seem to have missed {ci'i} altogether. I'm initially sceptical as= to
whether an Aleph cardinal should have its "own" cmavo, but if it&= #39;s
placed in PA3, it can take the next number string. I don't know enough<= br> about aleph cardinality to know if the construct {ci'i NUMBER} means infinity for any NUMBER. If so, this could be the default value with
no string following.

Perhaps we need new cmavo for keeping order on number strings, but I'm<= br> not sure we need one for the two uses of {pi'e}. They seem to work in the same way, differing only in semantics? This is easily resolved by
context.

In my system, {pa pi'e pi so pi'e pi rau} is grammatical. It probab= ly
means 1:9/10:enough. Using the clock as an example, this could mean
1:00:54+enough.

{pi} and {ra'u} make no sense when they are the only numbers in a
number string. This is a problem. I take my suggestion back that
{ji'i} should be grammatical on its own. I'd like to see that a num= ber
string cannot contain only PA5.

Perhaps {pi pai} is nonsense - you might be right.

Djandus:
I, too, agree that selma'o should be based purely on function. So yes,<= br> there is no reason not to combine PA2 and PA6. Let's call this
hypothetical PA for PA2* If we fuse PA2 and PA6, we need a word for
"end number string". Otherwise, I think we could do without, sinc= e you
could just end a number string by beginning a new one. After all, why
have two number strings of the same selma'o describing the same
number?

PA4 and PA5 cannot be combined though, since only 1 of each PA5 makes
sense in a number string. (this, by the way is also a problem! if {li
pi pa ji'i} is grammatical, why not {li pi pa pi}? Solution: Only one of each PA5 is permitted. That's a violation of the definition of a
selma'o, right? Darn.) I wouldn't like to see extra grammatical rul= es
for subgroups inside one selma'o - then I'd rather see ten selma= 9;o of
PA. (why not? It encompasses 40 cmavo or so)

Right. Every grammatical string should not necesarrily be meaningful,
but it'd be nice if it were so, even if the meaning it conveys is
contradicory or silly.

I see it as right-grouping, because {za'u su'o fi'u vo} (more t= han at
least one divided by four) is understood (za'u(su'o(fi'u vo))).=
Futhermore, {pa re ci} is structured (semantically, not necessarily
grammatically)

Otherwise, I agree with you completely.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.
--0015175ce046e3e65e04b1fb14de--