Received: from mail-ob0-f189.google.com ([209.85.214.189]:55889)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncCKvA2oWYARC1o8aBBRoEO0dHGw@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1T3Giy-0008FA-At; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:24:22 -0700
Received: by obbun3 with SMTP id un3sf5893483obb.16
        for <multiple recipients>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:24:06 -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:from
         :date:message-id:subject: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=oHulttKEXcnDznezcYDBts4s0dq/4if020ORz8+95p4=;
        b=ylW7vm3wQ1Tw2Zl7N8Lhx2noQdXc3POqqC+SewVW7cGB4X9nKgLLG/R/zMEKTprdLo
         1w/X+uwJqgyWHZz2en3yXKHwAwxSjR/6HURvRveTXiDfP7d3/meErkvvpTRH7jAObcgT
         +HvJLuVAbYT60rcfNQj54yt1JssITWgtFX67M=
Received: by 10.52.67.71 with SMTP id l7mr1414482vdt.12.1345425845763;
        Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.52.66.242 with SMTP id i18ls3959818vdt.5.gmail; Sun, 19 Aug
 2012 18:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.1.165 with SMTP id 5mr3286903ven.31.1345425845109;
        Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.1.165 with SMTP id 5mr3286901ven.31.1345425845094;
        Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vc0-f171.google.com (mail-vc0-f171.google.com [209.85.220.171])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cf2si321387vdb.0.2012.08.19.18.24.05
        (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
        Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.171;
Received: by mail-vc0-f171.google.com with SMTP id d16so6204691vcd.30
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:24:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.0.82 with SMTP id 18mr9663387vec.0.1345425844999; Sun, 19
 Aug 2012 18:24:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.52.95.234 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Aug 2012 18:23:44 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <50302680.2090609@gmx.de>
References: <16cab846-3f84-4bc6-b64f-56aeab08244b@googlegroups.com>
 <536d8399-344f-41e4-9315-27c7d8c95176@googlegroups.com> <50302680.2090609@gmx.de>
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Aug 2012 21:23:44 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDUxOftp5-Zbsn2QASAK=sSRLXS5ftSMO0dk8fVdyu66XQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Let's move {soi} to JOI. And why can't places be
 interconnected in lojban predicates?
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Original-Sender: nictytan@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com:
 domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.171 as permitted sender)
 smtp.mail=nictytan@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: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en_US>
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe?hl=en_US>, <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d3469016a504c7a85d58
X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/)
X-Spam_score: -0.7
X-Spam_score_int: -6
X-Spam_bar: /

--047d7b33d3469016a504c7a85d58
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I created a selma'o once for an idea I had (i.e. multiple-sumti relative
clauses). It turns out that it does what you want {soi} to do. That is to
say, "connect" two sumti, while preserving the fact that they fill
different places in the selbri's structure. In particular, {ce'e} does
this, but moving {soi} to CEhE would cause the awful side effect of the
resulting joint sumti being connectable with pe'e+connective.

Anyway, the selma'o I had made up for this purpose is JOhOI and it has
essentially the same grammar as CEhE, minus the pe'e stuff. The fact that
the grammar is the same as CEhE means that it is implementable. "Move" soi
into JOhOI (call it SOI still) and change se'u such that it doesn't
terminate SOI anymore (only SEI). SOI still only connects sumti (or terms,
due to the nature of CEhE) so there's no issue as there would have been
with JOI.

Formally define the interpretation of SOI such that any of the sumti in the
SOI-connected series can be arbitrarily swapped and the bridi still holds.

Problem solved? :)

mu'o mi'e la tsani

On 18 August 2012 19:34, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

>  Am 18.08.2012 20:14, schrieb djandus:
>
> Whenever I first learned {soi}, I had a similar thought, but slightly
> different. It's not to take SOI and make it JOI, because that's basically
> completely undesired. Instead, it would say:
>
>  Use SOI like JOI between sumti, but *only* between sumti. (SOI thus
> allows {ku} elision)
>
>
> What do you mean? ku can always be elided, even with JOI: lo mlatu joi lo
> gerku
> There was a time when this didn't work due to parser limitations, but
> we're long past that.
>
>  SOI, like JOI, is allowed to make a SOI series. ({ko'a soi ko'e soi
> ko'i} is allowed.) SOI asserts that all sumti in the series can be swapped
> in any order without changing the validity of the overall bridi. Otherwise,
> you can remove all SOI (and insert the possibly elided {ku} where
> necessary) and parse the bridi exactly. (So every sumti still falls into
> the place structure as if SOI wasn't there, except that the components of
> the series can be swapped and replaced in any order.)
>
>
> A similar thing happens in my proposal too, but this is a bit weird,
> because you're filling one sumti place while leaving all the others empy.
>
>  The benefit is that
> mi prami do soi vo'a vo'e
> is shortened to
> mi soi do prami
> And even more beneficial are longer statements, such as
> mi bevri lo tanxe ku ti soi tu ca'o bi cacra ca lo cabdei
> "I carried boxes there and back for eight hours today."
>
>
> mi bevri lo tanxe ti fa'u tu ze'a lo cacra be li bi ca lo cabdei
>
>  [...]
>
>  However, this type of change sorely disagrees with current usage, so a
> new word would be more proper than a replacement.
>
>
> soi sees extremely little usage; almost any change is an improvement, but
> moving soi to JOI is a bit odd, it still feels hackish. My suggestion
> doesn't break usage though, if that's really of importance.
>
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>
> --
> pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.


--047d7b33d3469016a504c7a85d58
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I created a selma&#39;o once for an idea I had (i.e. multiple-sumti relativ=
e clauses). It turns out that it does what you want {soi} to do. That is to=
 say, &quot;connect&quot; two sumti, while preserving the fact that they fi=
ll different places in the selbri&#39;s structure. In particular, {ce&#39;e=
} does this, but moving {soi} to CEhE would cause the awful side effect of =
the resulting joint sumti being connectable with pe&#39;e+connective.=A0<di=
v>

<br></div><div>Anyway, the selma&#39;o I had made up for this purpose is JO=
hOI and it has essentially the same grammar as CEhE, minus the pe&#39;e stu=
ff. The fact that the grammar is the same as CEhE means that it is implemen=
table. &quot;Move&quot; soi into JOhOI (call it SOI still) and change se&#3=
9;u such that it doesn&#39;t terminate SOI anymore (only SEI). SOI still on=
ly connects sumti (or terms, due to the nature of CEhE) so there&#39;s no i=
ssue as there would have been with JOI.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Formally define the interpretation of SOI such that any=
 of the sumti in the SOI-connected series can be arbitrarily swapped and th=
e bridi still holds.</div><div><br></div><div>Problem solved? :)</div>
<div>
<br></div><div>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e la tsani<br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
>On 18 August 2012 19:34, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mail=
to:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<b=
r><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:=
1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">


 =20
   =20
 =20
  <div bgcolor=3D"#FFFFFF" text=3D"#000000">
    <div><tt>Am 18.08.2012 20:14, schrieb
        djandus:<br>
      </tt></div><div class=3D"im">
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"><tt>Whenever I first learned {soi}, I had a s=
imilar
        thought, but slightly different. It&#39;s not to take SOI and make
        it JOI, because that&#39;s basically completely undesired. Instead,
        it would say:</tt>
      <div><tt><br>
        </tt></div>
      <div><tt>Use SOI like JOI between sumti, but <i>only</i>=A0between
          sumti. (SOI thus allows {ku} elision) </tt></div>
    </blockquote>
    </div><tt><br>
      What do you mean? ku can always be elided, even with JOI: lo mlatu
      joi lo gerku<br>
      There was a time when this didn&#39;t work due to parser limitations,
      but we&#39;re long past that.<br>
      <br>
    </tt><div class=3D"im">
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <div><tt>SOI, like JOI, is allowed to make a SOI series. ({ko&#39;a
          soi ko&#39;e soi ko&#39;i} is allowed.) SOI asserts that all sumt=
i in
          the series can be swapped in any order without changing the
          validity of the overall bridi. Otherwise, you can remove all
          SOI (and insert the possibly elided {ku} where necessary) and
          parse the bridi exactly. (So every sumti still falls into the
          place structure as if SOI wasn&#39;t there, except that the
          components of the series can be swapped and replaced in any
          order.)</tt></div>
    </blockquote>
    </div><tt><br>
      A similar thing happens in my proposal too, but this is a bit
      weird, because you&#39;re filling one sumti place while leaving all
      the others empy.<br>
      <br>
    </tt><div class=3D"im">
    <blockquote type=3D"cite">
      <div><tt>The benefit is that</tt></div>
      <div><tt>mi prami do soi vo&#39;a vo&#39;e</tt></div>
      <div><tt>is shortened to</tt></div>
      <div><tt>mi soi do prami</tt></div>
      <div><tt>And even more beneficial are longer statements, such as</tt>=
</div>
      <div><tt>mi bevri lo tanxe ku ti soi tu ca&#39;o bi cacra ca lo cabde=
i</tt></div>
      <div><tt>&quot;I carried boxes there and back for eight hours today.&=
quot;</tt></div>
    </blockquote>
    </div><tt><br>
      mi bevri lo tanxe ti fa&#39;u tu ze&#39;a lo cacra be li bi ca lo cab=
dei<br>
      <br>
    </tt>
    <blockquote type=3D"cite"><tt>[...]</tt><div class=3D"im">
      <div><tt><br>
        </tt></div>
      <div><tt>However, this type of change sorely disagrees with
          current usage, so a new word would be more proper than a
          replacement.</tt></div>
    </div></blockquote>
    <tt><br>
      soi sees extremely little usage; almost any change is an
      improvement, but moving soi to JOI is a bit odd, it still feels
      hackish. My suggestion doesn&#39;t break usage though, if that&#39;s
      really of importance.<br>
      <br>
    </tt><div class=3D"im"><tt>mu&#39;o mi&#39;e la selpa&#39;i<br>
    </tt>
    <pre cols=3D"72"><tt>--=20
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo</tt></p=
re>
  </div></div>


<p></p>

-- <br><div class=3D"im HOEnZb">
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br></div><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bun=
subscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegrou=
ps.com</a>.<br>

For more options, visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/g=
roup/lojban?hl=3Den" target=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojba=
n?hl=3Den</a>.<br>


</div></div></blockquote></div><br></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 />



--047d7b33d3469016a504c7a85d58--