Received: from mail-yx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.213.189]:37964) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Sww8W-0004fQ-NS; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:38 -0700 Received: by yenl13 with SMTP id l13sf10469022yen.16 for ; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=QJNOmskhSOiRoi1ozdQRH+iRNcj+7w4s08nFwMjiWG8=; b=VDXD8y3EdIFUr5MxratmbZ2iS3LX0ZKjhMCApabziEiYR/26Ek9r8OOgxT0RXTNdzY PpEuMko1u3KHiNKLPVCykMyNa7CwKJC4N3aYbfbWuKYaONEmCvDI2uhTIHLvTs1gNZVl 7It1X5s6LOtDSKFADEDIZCavRlnbdYIHuNLOc= Received: by 10.52.37.8 with SMTP id u8mr80994vdj.18.1343916738011; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:18 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.149.129 with SMTP id t1ls2122973vcv.0.gmail; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.137.226 with SMTP id ql2mr3577437veb.16.1343916736671; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.58.137.226 with SMTP id ql2mr3577435veb.16.1343916736655; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f172.google.com (mail-vc0-f172.google.com [209.85.220.172]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id y20si971322vdd.0.2012.08.02.07.12.16 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of veijo.vilva@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.172; Received: by mail-vc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id fo14so10977205vcb.17 for ; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.201.195 with SMTP id kc3mr7880267vec.12.1343916736217; Thu, 02 Aug 2012 07:12:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.159.193 with HTTP; Thu, 2 Aug 2012 07:12:15 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 2 Aug 2012 17:12:15 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Afterthought TAG Termset Connectives From: Veijo Vilva To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: veijo.vilva@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of veijo.vilva@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=veijo.vilva@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd75162ab819904c648ff80 X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/) X-Spam_score: 0.0 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --047d7bd75162ab819904c648ff80 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 30 July 2012 15:26, Jacob Errington wrote: > 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. > .... > > 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. > It is quite easy to implement it with the PEG, but in my opinion the pure afterthought form feels a bit unpalatable. Whereas the forethought form is, e.g., nu'i ca ge mi my gi do dy klama the afterthought form would be mi ce'e my pe'e je ca bo do ce'e dy klama Another possibility would be to mix these two to get nu'i mi my pe'e je ca bo do dy klama i.e. NUhI terms PEhE JA [tag BO] terms [NUhU] which is presently my favorite and might require a wee bit less mental gymnastics to grok than either one of the pure forms. Many things are possible, but another matter is whether we want to have them -- and when. mu'o mi'e veion -- > 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. > -- web site: http://galactinus.net/vilva/ on Google+: https://plus.google.com/106533767817816079660/posts -- 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. --047d7bd75162ab819904c648ff80 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 30 July 2012 15:26, Jacob Errington &= lt;nictytan@gmail.c= om> wrote:
Do these exist?
The forethought version is grammatical:

<= /div>
{.i nu'i ca gi zo .u'i ny nu'u gi zo .i'i cy sels= ku}

Considering that afterthought TAG connectives = take the form of <[connective] TAG bo> where [connective] is the conn= ective of the appropriate connective selma'o, e.g. {mi .e ca bo do}, I = would presume that the afterthought termset connective form would be <[s= umti] pe'e je TAG bo [sumti]> where [sumti] is >=3D1 sumti. Unfor= tunately, of course, this does not parse in jbofi'e.
....
=A0
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 proponen= ts.) Therefore, I see no reason why this discrepancy between forethought an= d afterthought should exist. (Not to mention the impossible non-logical bri= di-tail afterthought connective, which I wanted to use just today...) Could= it be that afterthought tag termset connection was impossible due to a par= ser 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 g= rammar? As far as I can tell, making {pe'e JA TAG bo} grammatical break= s no usage at all.
=
It is quite easy to implement it with the PEG, but in my opi= nion the pure afterthought form feels a bit unpalatable. Whereas the foreth= ought form is, e.g.,

=A0=A0nu'i ca ge mi my gi do dy klama
the afterthought form would be

=A0 mi = ce'e my pe'e je ca bo do ce'e dy klama

Another possibility would be to mix these two to get

=A0 nu'i mi my pe'e je ca bo do dy klama
<= div>
i.e.

=A0 NUhI terms PEhE JA [ta= g BO] terms [NUhU]

which is presently my favorite = and might require a wee bit less mental gymnastics to grok than either one = of the pure forms. Many things are possible, but another matter is whether = we want to have them -- and when.

mu'o mi'e veion

--=A0
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@googlegrou= ps.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.



--

=A0 web site: http://galactinus.net/vilva/
=A0 on Google+: <= a href=3D"https://plus.google.com/106533767817816079660/posts" target=3D"_b= lank">https://plus.google.com/106533767817816079660/posts

--
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.
--047d7bd75162ab819904c648ff80--