Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.177 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.177;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Jul 2012 08:26:35 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDVDaZ5LKhhQsp58h_bfnt9iTodtC2wBJB9OpsbXNRfCKg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Afterthought TAG Termset Connectives
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf307d03746e3cb204c60b2d41
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

--20cf307d03746e3cb204c60b2d41
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

Do these exist?
The forethought version is grammatical:

{.i nu'i ca gi zo .u'i ny nu'u gi zo .i'i cy selsku}

Considering that afterthought TAG connectives take the form of
<[connective] TAG bo> where [connective] is the connective of the
appropriate connective selma'o, e.g. {mi .e ca bo do}, I would presume that
the afterthought termset connective form would be <[sumti] pe'e je TAG bo
[sumti]> where [sumti] is >=1 sumti. Unfortunately, of course, this does
not parse in jbofi'e.

Additionally, it would appear as though TAG connectives such as {.e ca bo}
are not valid utterances by themselves, whereas bare connectives such as
{.e} are. I'm not sure that this is desirable, but it does make it
impossible to answer {ji}-questions and such with tag connectives. I can
think of an example usage inspired by the CLL example of {ji}:
{.i do djica tu'a lo tcati ji lo ckafi} "Would you like tea or coffee?"
{.e ba bo} (English sucks for the answer:) "The former, then the latter."

(This example is incidentally unaffected by the connective problem that
usually arises when using connectives in non-top-level contexts like {tu'a
ko'a .e ko'a}. The problem itself is that it's arguable as to whether {tu'a
ko'a .e ko'e broda} is equivalent to {tu'a ko'a broda .ije tu'a ko'e broda}
-> {lo su'u ko'a co'e cu broda .ije lo su'u ko'e co'e cu broda} or rather
{lo su'u ko'a .e ko'e co'e cu broda}.

A similar, more drastic case occurs in {lo pendo be mi .e do}, which we'd
naturally assume is "the friend of both me and you" but it's arguable as to
whether {lo pendo be mi .e do cu broda} is equivalent to {lo pendo be mi cu
broda .ije lo pendo be do cu broda} or {zo'e noi pendo mi .e do cu broda}.
My rationale behind supporting the latter interpretation is that using one
descriptor should only create one description, whereas the former
interpretation creates two descriptions behind the scenes, namely {lo pendo
be mi} and {lo pendo be do} which could be referring to entirely different
things. Additionally although less importantly, the latter interpretation
seems far more natural, not to mention that to achieve the meaning of the
former interpretation using the latter, one must necessarily employ the
{zo'e noi} construction, which is unnecessarily cumbersome, whereas with
the latter interpretation, one must simply repeat {lo pendo} such that {lo
pendo be mi ku .e lo pendo be do}. The only apparent downside to the latter
interpretation is that when using afterthought, in order to repeat the main
description, a lot of terminators might be required, not to mention that if
the description is fairly complex (a four-part tanru) it can become very
annoying to repeat it.)

Returning to the main point of this post, considering that termsets is a
part of the language that everybody loves to hate, it's unlikely that
afterthought tag termset connectives will ever see the light of day, but I
don't think that the cmavo required for termsets are going to disappear any
time soon (at least not before mekso, for which there remains proponents.)
Therefore, I see no reason why this discrepancy between forethought and
afterthought should exist. (Not to mention the impossible non-logical
bridi-tail afterthought connective, which I wanted to use just today...)
Could it be that afterthought tag termset connection was impossible due to
a parser limitation? What with the PEG being capable of all sorts of things
that the older grammars weren't, could this be implemented in the current
grammar? As far as I can tell, making {pe'e JA TAG bo} grammatical breaks
no usage at all.

mu'o mi'e la tsani

-- 
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.


--20cf307d03746e3cb204c60b2d41
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Do these exist?<div>The forethought version is grammatical:</div><div><br><=
/div><div>{.i nu&#39;i ca gi zo .u&#39;i ny nu&#39;u gi zo .i&#39;i cy sels=
ku}</div><div><br></div><div>Considering that afterthought TAG connectives =
take the form of &lt;[connective] TAG bo&gt; where [connective] is the conn=
ective of the appropriate connective selma&#39;o, e.g. {mi .e ca bo do}, I =
would presume that the afterthought termset connective form would be &lt;[s=
umti] pe&#39;e je TAG bo [sumti]&gt; where [sumti] is &gt;=3D1 sumti. Unfor=
tunately, of course, this does not parse in jbofi&#39;e.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Additionally, it would appear as though TAG connectives=
 such as {.e ca bo} are not valid utterances by themselves, whereas bare co=
nnectives such as {.e} are. I&#39;m not sure that this is desirable, but it=
 does make it impossible to answer {ji}-questions and such with tag connect=
ives. I can think of an example usage inspired by the CLL example of {ji}:=
=A0</div>

<div>{.i do djica tu&#39;a lo tcati ji lo ckafi} &quot;Would you like tea o=
r coffee?&quot;</div><div>{.e ba bo} (English sucks for the answer:) &quot;=
The former, then the latter.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>(This example i=
s incidentally unaffected by the connective problem that usually arises whe=
n using connectives in non-top-level contexts like {tu&#39;a ko&#39;a .e ko=
&#39;a}. The problem itself is that it&#39;s arguable as to whether {tu&#39=
;a ko&#39;a .e ko&#39;e broda} is equivalent to {tu&#39;a ko&#39;a broda .i=
je tu&#39;a ko&#39;e broda} -&gt; {lo su&#39;u ko&#39;a co&#39;e cu broda .=
ije lo su&#39;u ko&#39;e co&#39;e cu broda} or rather {lo su&#39;u ko&#39;a=
 .e ko&#39;e co&#39;e cu broda}.=A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>A similar, more drastic case occurs in {lo pendo be mi =
.e do}, which we&#39;d naturally assume is &quot;the friend of both me and =
you&quot; but it&#39;s arguable as to whether {lo pendo be mi .e do cu brod=
a} is equivalent to {lo pendo be mi cu broda .ije lo pendo be do cu broda} =
or {zo&#39;e noi pendo mi .e do cu broda}. My rationale behind supporting t=
he latter interpretation is that using one descriptor should only create on=
e description, whereas the former interpretation creates two descriptions b=
ehind the scenes, namely {lo pendo be mi} and {lo pendo be do} which could =
be referring to entirely different things.=A0Additionally although less imp=
ortantly, the latter interpretation seems far more natural, not to mention =
that to achieve the meaning of the former interpretation using the latter, =
one must necessarily employ the {zo&#39;e noi} construction, which is unnec=
essarily cumbersome, whereas with the latter interpretation, one must simpl=
y repeat {lo pendo} such that {lo pendo be mi ku .e lo pendo be do}. The on=
ly apparent downside to the latter interpretation is that when using aftert=
hought, in order to repeat the main description, a lot of terminators might=
 be required, not to mention that if the description is fairly complex (a f=
our-part tanru) it can become very annoying to repeat it.)</div>

<div><br></div><div>Returning to the main point of this post, considering t=
hat termsets is a part of the language that everybody loves to hate, it&#39=
;s unlikely that afterthought tag termset connectives will ever see the lig=
ht of day, but I don&#39;t think that the cmavo required for termsets are g=
oing to disappear any time soon (at least not before mekso, for which there=
 remains proponents.) Therefore, I see no reason why this discrepancy betwe=
en forethought and afterthought should exist. (Not to mention the impossibl=
e non-logical bridi-tail afterthought connective, which I wanted to use jus=
t today...) Could it be that afterthought tag termset connection was imposs=
ible due to a parser limitation? What with the PEG being capable of all sor=
ts of things that the older grammars weren&#39;t, could this be implemented=
 in the current grammar? As far as I can tell, making {pe&#39;e JA TAG bo} =
grammatical breaks no usage at all.</div>

<div><br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e la tsani</div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com.<br />

For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban=
?hl=3Den.<br />


--20cf307d03746e3cb204c60b2d41--