On Monday, December 24, 2012 9:05:53 PM UTC+4, tsani wrote:
On 24 December 2012 11:54= , la gleki <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wr= ote:

{sei ... se'u} inside =A0{lu ...li'u} must be a part = of the quote however xorxe's Alice in Wonderland uses that to translate= quotes split into several parts. I'm not the only person who thinks th= at this is wrong.

IMO {sei} has at least three different meanings.

1. As an alternative to UI ({sei mi gleki= ~=3D .ui})
2. As an alternative to moving= the outer bridi into the inner bridi ({do melbi sei mi jinvi}=3D{mi jinvi = lo du'u do melbi})

3. To translate partitioned quotations.

All of these meanings are actually the same.= In every case, it's "meaning #2".

{.i do melbi sei mi cusku} -> {.i mi cusku lo se du'u do melbi}=
{.i ui do cinba mi} -> {.i sei mi gleki do cinba mi} -> {.= i mi gleki lo nu do cinba mi}

Personally, I disapp= rove of sei-within-lu for partitioned quotes, for the simple reason that on= e can't unambiguously determine whether the sei-clause is actually spok= en, unless {sa'a} is used (which it usually isn't).

=A0

Some time ago i proposed {xoi} to replace the second meaning = of {sei}. And now here is my solution for the third meaning.<= /div>

Repl= acing any meanings of sei with another word is unnecessary because {sei} on= ly really has one meaning.

How can you distinguish betwee= n

{do cusku lu do klama mi li'u}
and= =A0
{do cusku lo nu do klama mi}
using {sei}?

That's a non-prob= lem, because fasnu1 (assuming nu produces a fasnu1) can't be cusku2.

Distinguishing between sedu'u and lu is a bit more subtle, and = I've seen variant uses of sei for this. The CLL's example dialogue = about some people getting announcing a future marriage uses sei on the top = level, without lu, but also uses "direct anaphora", which means {= lu} is being indirectly used.

e.g. {.i mi'a ba spesimbi'o doi rodo sei la bab= cusku} would imply lu, because the anaphora are those that Bob himself wou= ld be using.

-> {.i la bab cusku lu mi'a ba spesimbi'o= doi rodo}

The contrary usage would use "indirect anaphora&qu= ot; and would imply sedu'u:

e.g. {.i la bab jo= i lo spenu'e cu spesimbi'o sei la bab cusku be fi=A0loi ro zvati be= lo kafybarja}

-> {.i la bab cusku lo sedu'u by joi lo spenu'e cu spesimbi= 'o kei loi ro zvati be lo kafybarja}

The doi i= n this case, being a free modifier, can't be carried into the sedu'= u correctly, but seeing as COI too can be transformed into sei-clauses, we = can move it to the outer bridi.

Deciding which is correct would simply require an autho= ritative decision to be made, but both at this rate are possibilities, and = as it stands, there is some inconsistency in usage.

=A0

=A0
Proposal.
The same FA two times i= n a bridi should mean {je} according i.e.

{fe lo barda ku mi pu viska fe lo gerku}=3D{mi pu viska lo ba= rda je gerku}.

This system seems inco= nsistent: a sumti operation, namely the use of FA, causes a selbri effect.<= /div>
=A0

Needless to say that "= it's a big dog" is rather {ko'a barda je gerku} rather than {k= o'a barda gerku} as natlangish tanru i.e. metaphors i.e. noun phrases w= ith adjectives are not necessary in a logical style of lojban.

Now such proposal allow= s us to express divided quotations

xorxe's solution: {= lu ko klama mi sei la alis cu cusku se'u i mi djica lo nu catlu do li&#= 39;u} (25 syllables)

gleki's solution: =A0{lu ko klama mi li'u se cusku la= alis fa lu i mi djica lo nu catlu do li'u} (26 syllables)

As I mentioned =A0above, whe= re's the {je} ? What selbri is it connecting?

<= div>

Oh sorry. The rule =A0is {li'u je lu} annihila= tes itself. The order is important.

Okay... it's good to know that w= e're using the experimental JA-works-on-sumti proposal. Equally, {lo br= oda je lo brode} is not equal to {lo broda je broda}; the former causes dis= tribution by virtue of the logical connection. {lu li'o li'u je lu = li'o li'u} does not annihilate itself because it's a logical co= nnective (unless your je is not sugar for .e, in which case I don't at = all follow what you're trying to say.)

So, if I get this right, you're saying two differen= t things:

#1 {.i lu broda li'u selsku mi fa lu .ije brode li&= #39;u} -> {.i lu broda li'u je lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi} -/&= gt; {.i lu broda li'u selsku mi .ije lu .ije brode li'u selsku mi}<= /div>

#2 {.i lo barda fa lo gerku cu xunre} -> {.i lo barda je gerku cu x= unre}

You do realize that these are very different= things: in the first you get a pseudo-logical connective that doesn't = expand into two bridi and in the second you a tanru-internal logical connec= tive.

Again, this is inconsistent.

=A0

.i= mi'e la tsani mu'o

--
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.
--20cf3071cae8bc30a304d19cfe51--