Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.219.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.219.49;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:21:43 -0500
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDWDJ3xeZOnb4O-GcOiVYOocVM1YQ31BZt+SNrrd9kDc+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Advanced Place Stucture Mangling
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=f46d0444e92546ee3904d3ed096c
X-Spam_score: 1.4
X-Spam_score_int: 14
X-Spam_bar: +
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  P.S. (as in pre scriptum ?) This e-mail turned out longer
   than I had originally intended, but I think that it's worthwhile letting the
    mailing list in on this discovery I made just yesterday and expanded today
    in #lojban. It gets technical at times, but I have provided translations
   for all the examples, which I have tried to use as much as possible to make
    things more tangible. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.4 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (nictytan[at]gmail.com)
  1.5 RCVD_IN_NJABL_SPAM     RBL: NJABL: sender is confirmed spam source
                             [209.85.214.184 listed in combined.njabl.org]
  0.0 HTML_MESSAGE           BODY: HTML included in message
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU          Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's
                             domain
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

--f46d0444e92546ee3904d3ed096c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

P.S. (as in pre scriptum ?) This e-mail turned out longer than I had
originally intended, but I think that it's worthwhile letting the mailing
list in on this discovery I made just yesterday and expanded today in
#lojban. It gets technical at times, but I have provided translations for
all the examples, which I have tried to use as much as possible to make
things more tangible.

We all know that {be} works on the selbri-level, allowing us to inject
sumti directly into the selbri. We also know that the primary use for this
is in description sumti, where we can select an x1 based on definite (i.e.
non-zo'e) values in other places. (We also probably agree that {lo broda be
fa ko'a} is either nonsense or equivent to {lo broda no'u ko'a}, but that's
outside the scope of this e-mail.) However, being done on a selbri-level,
what's really happening with {be} is that we're creating "new" selbri each
time we use it.

Consider {lo klama be la .bastyn.}: we create a new selbri with the
definition "x1 goes to Boston ..." in order to select the x1 and get a
referent and whatever. (The actual way articles work and possible issues
with that is also outside the scope of this e-mail.) What's really
interesting, however, isn't description sumti. (In fact, that's pretty
boring.) What's really interesting is *what* is in the "..." of my previous
definition of {klama be la .bastyn.}. The full definition is "x1 goes to
Boston from x2 via x3 by means x4."

Notice how the x3 place of {klama} has become the x2 place of {klama be
ko'a}. Indeed, injecting a sumti has the effect of moving all the later
places *forward*. What repercussions does this have on top-level bridi?

Consider {dunda}, "x1 gives x2 to x3." Given the above proof of place
promotion, {dunda be ko'a} should mean "x1 gives ko'a to x2." Considering
that {ko'a broda ko'e} equals by definition {ko'a ko'e broda}, {mi do dunda
be ko'a} means "I give you ko'a," mirroring the English structure! By using
{be} and the ability to move places into the bridi-head, we can create
pseudo-"1 3 2" argument order at the cost of *one* syllable. The actual SE
conversion required to achieve the true structure is  {se te se} which is
three syllables long and requires forethought. In a way, this selbri-level
manipulation can almost be thought of as "afterthought SE conversion."

We can create even wonkier place structures by using {be FA}. Basic {se}
can be achieved using {ko'a broda be fa ko'e}, e.g. {lo nu lo pampe'o cu
darno cu badri be fa mi} "My lover being far is what saddens me." The real
complexity of the transformation comes from moving bridi-tail sumti into
the bridi-head: {.i mi do lo barda cu vecnu be lo plise} "I you for a lot
sold an apple." (Mirroring the Lojban with English leads to ugliness, but
I'll try to keep it up so long as it's understandable.) The argument order
in that case is 1-2-4-3, with a corresponding SE conversion of {te ve te}.

From this, I concluded the generality that* when all sumti are moved to the
bridi head, the effect of {broda be fa xi ny ko'a} is to send the x_n place
to the end of the place structure.* In a way, this can be thought of as
"remote" FA, as it allows us to perform a FA operation on the selbri level,
outside the formal place structure.

An example, with corresponding argument order and SE conversion:
{.i lo tcadu zdani lo nurma zdani cu klama be fa mi} "To the city house
from the country house go I." 2-3-1 {se te}

Before continuing, we must recall that {se} is applied before {be}, as {lo
se broda be ko'a} has {ko'a} in broda1.

Combining this type of {be} operation with ordinary SE conversions, we can
produce extremely cryptically ordered selbri:
{.i lo ni se pluka lo ka pinxe lo ckafi kei kei do te zmadu be mi) "In the
amount of enjoying drinking coffee, you are greater than me." 3-1-2 {te se}
What is truly shocking about this is that we see a {te}-conversion, but the
selbri becomes reduced into a binary predicate, i.e. a predicate with two
argument slots, because of the {be ko'a}.

Everything above is what I had discovered yesterday. What follows is what I
discovered today.

It is (currently) ungrammatical to use {be} twice on the same selbri. (Not
that I'd necessarily want it to be.) Indeed we have {bei} for that. But, we
can think of the following as "forethought bei."

Using {ke} to create a bracket, we can box one selbri inside another, {ke
broda [ke'e]} has the {broda} selbri trapped inside the {ke..ke'e} selbri.
The {ke..ke'e} selbri has the same structure as the inner selbri, and this
is what we can exploit to avoid using {bei}. Formally, {ke broda ke'e be
ko'a} is equivalent to {broda be ko'a}, but if broda already has linkargs,
i.e. injected sumti with {be}, we can't move the outer {be} inside.

Consider {klama be la .bastyn.}, "x1 goes to Boston from x2 ..." We can't
attach another {be} to this selbri because it would be ungrammatical, but
we can box it inside {ke..ke'e} and make use of the place structure
transparency outlined in the previous paragraph and *then* use {be}: {ke
klama be la bastyn [be'o] be la montre'al}, "x1 goes to Boston from
Montreal via x2 in vehicle x3. In cases where the first sumti does not end
in a selbri, the use of the second {be} will cause (a lot) of elision.

Although "forethought" {bei} might appear utterly useless at first, it can
be used to avoid using multiple FA. Suppose we want to specify the x3 then
the x2 with injected sumti. Normally, we need to use {broda be fi ko'a bei
fe ko'e} because that's the way it works when you only have one selbri, but
when we use ke..ke'e as a selbri "box", we get to cheat, by considering
that the inner selbri has its own place structure:
{.i mi fi lo karce cu ke klama be fi la .montre'al. [be'o] [ke'e] be la
.bastyn.}
First, we consider the inner selbri {klama be fi la .montre'al.} as having
the place structure "x1 goes to x2 from Montreal via x3 in x4."
Then, we box that selbri inside the ke..ke'e brackets, and use be again, to
fill the x2, i.e. the destination, with {la .bastyn.}. This yields the
place structure "x1 goes to Boston from Montreal via x2 in x3."
Finally, when we do formal place filling, we use *{fi}* to specify the
vehicle, in this case {lo karce}
"I, in the car, go from Montreal to Boston."

Although using ke..ke'e by itself to create a place structure-transparent
"box" is pretty interesting, we can create even what I consider to be the
most advanced structure changes by using a combination of all the tools
outlined above: SE, {ke..ke'e}-boxing, {be}, and {bei}.

In sum, I have showed some ways that we can achieve more complicated
argument order by usually using {be}, moving sumti into the bridi head, and
using some FA in weird places, and how we can cheat the system with
"forethought bei" by using selbri-boxing.

Any comments, thoughts, violent objections, hate mail, or flame wars are
appreciated as usual iu

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


--f46d0444e92546ee3904d3ed096c
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div>P.S. (as in pre scriptum ?) This e-mail turned out longer than I had o=
riginally intended, but I think that it&#39;s worthwhile letting the mailin=
g list in on this discovery I made just yesterday and expanded today in #lo=
jban. It gets technical at times, but I have provided translations for all =
the examples, which I have tried to use as much as possible to make things =
more tangible.</div>

<div><br></div>We all know that {be} works on the selbri-level, allowing us=
 to inject sumti directly into the selbri. We also know that the primary us=
e for this is in description sumti, where we can select an x1 based on defi=
nite (i.e. non-zo&#39;e) values in other places. (We also probably agree th=
at {lo broda be fa ko&#39;a} is either nonsense or equivent to {lo broda no=
&#39;u ko&#39;a}, but that&#39;s outside the scope of this e-mail.) However=
, being done on a selbri-level, what&#39;s really happening with {be} is th=
at we&#39;re creating &quot;new&quot; selbri each time we use it. <br>

<br>Consider {lo klama be la .bastyn.}: we create a new selbri with the def=
inition &quot;x1 goes to Boston ...&quot; in order to select the x1 and get=
 a referent and whatever. (The actual way articles work and possible issues=
 with that is also outside the scope of this e-mail.) What&#39;s really int=
eresting, however, isn&#39;t description sumti. (In fact, that&#39;s pretty=
 boring.) What&#39;s really interesting is *what* is in the &quot;...&quot;=
 of my previous definition of {klama be la .bastyn.}. The full definition i=
s &quot;x1 goes to Boston from x2 via x3 by means x4.&quot;<br>

<br>Notice how the x3 place of {klama} has become the x2 place of {klama be=
 ko&#39;a}. Indeed, injecting a sumti has the effect of moving all the late=
r places *forward*. What repercussions does this have on top-level bridi? <=
br>

<br>Consider {dunda}, &quot;x1 gives x2 to x3.&quot; Given the above proof =
of place promotion, {dunda be ko&#39;a} should mean &quot;x1 gives ko&#39;a=
 to x2.&quot; Considering that {ko&#39;a broda ko&#39;e} equals by definiti=
on {ko&#39;a ko&#39;e broda}, {mi do dunda be ko&#39;a} means &quot;I give =
you ko&#39;a,&quot; mirroring the English structure! By using {be} and the =
ability to move places into the bridi-head, we can create pseudo-&quot;1 3 =
2&quot; argument order at the cost of *one* syllable. The actual SE convers=
ion required to achieve the true structure is =A0{se te se} which is three =
syllables long and requires forethought. In a way, this selbri-level manipu=
lation can almost be thought of as &quot;afterthought SE conversion.&quot;<=
br>

<br>We can create even wonkier place structures by using {be FA}. Basic {se=
} can be achieved using {ko&#39;a broda be fa ko&#39;e}, e.g. {lo nu lo pam=
pe&#39;o cu darno cu badri be fa mi} &quot;My lover being far is what sadde=
ns me.&quot; The real complexity of the transformation comes from moving br=
idi-tail sumti into the bridi-head: {.i mi do lo barda cu vecnu be lo plise=
} &quot;I you for a lot sold an apple.&quot; (Mirroring the Lojban with Eng=
lish leads to ugliness, but I&#39;ll try to keep it up so long as it&#39;s =
understandable.) The argument order in that case is 1-2-4-3, with a corresp=
onding SE conversion of {te ve te}. <br>

<br>From this, I concluded the generality that<i>=A0when all sumti are move=
d to the bridi head, the effect of {broda be fa xi ny ko&#39;a} is to send =
the x_n place to the end of the place structure.</i>=A0In a way, this can b=
e thought of as &quot;remote&quot; FA, as it allows us to perform a FA oper=
ation on the selbri level, outside the formal place structure.<div>

<br></div><div>An example, with corresponding argument order and SE convers=
ion:=A0</div><div>{.i lo tcadu zdani lo nurma zdani cu klama be fa mi} &quo=
t;To the city house from the country house go I.&quot; 2-3-1 {se te}</div>

<div><br></div><div>Before continuing, we must recall that {se} is applied =
before {be}, as {lo se broda be ko&#39;a} has {ko&#39;a} in broda1.</div><d=
iv><br></div><div>Combining this type of {be} operation with ordinary SE co=
nversions, we can produce extremely cryptically ordered selbri:</div>

<div>{.i lo ni se pluka lo ka pinxe lo ckafi kei kei do te zmadu be mi) &qu=
ot;In the amount of enjoying drinking coffee, you are greater than me.&quot=
; 3-1-2 {te se}</div><div>What is truly shocking about this is that we see =
a {te}-conversion, but the selbri becomes reduced into a binary predicate, =
i.e. a predicate with two argument slots, because of the {be ko&#39;a}.</di=
v>

<div><br></div><div>Everything above is what I had discovered yesterday. Wh=
at follows is what I discovered today.</div><div><br></div><div>It is (curr=
ently) ungrammatical to use {be} twice on the same selbri. (Not that I&#39;=
d necessarily want it to be.) Indeed we have {bei} for that. But, we can th=
ink of the following as &quot;forethought bei.&quot;=A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>Using {ke} to create a bracket, we can box one selbri i=
nside another, {ke broda [ke&#39;e]} has the {broda} selbri trapped inside =
the {ke..ke&#39;e} selbri. The {ke..ke&#39;e} selbri has the same structure=
 as the inner selbri, and this is what we can exploit to avoid using {bei}.=
 Formally, {ke broda ke&#39;e be ko&#39;a} is equivalent to {broda be ko=
9;a}, but if broda already has linkargs, i.e. injected sumti with {be}, we =
can&#39;t move the outer {be} inside.=A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>Consider {klama be la .bastyn.}, &quot;x1 goes to Bosto=
n from x2 ...&quot; We can&#39;t attach another {be} to this selbri because=
 it would be ungrammatical, but we can box it inside {ke..ke&#39;e} and mak=
e use of the place structure transparency outlined in the previous paragrap=
h and *then* use {be}: {ke klama be la bastyn [be&#39;o] be la montre&#39;a=
l}, &quot;x1 goes to Boston from Montreal via x2 in vehicle x3. In cases wh=
ere the first sumti does not end in a selbri, the use of the second {be} wi=
ll cause (a lot) of elision.=A0</div>

<div><br></div><div>Although &quot;forethought&quot; {bei} might appear utt=
erly useless at first, it can be used to avoid using multiple FA. Suppose w=
e want to specify the x3 then the x2 with injected sumti. Normally, we need=
 to use {broda be fi ko&#39;a bei fe ko&#39;e} because that&#39;s the way i=
t works when you only have one selbri, but when we use ke..ke&#39;e as a se=
lbri &quot;box&quot;, we get to cheat, by considering that the inner selbri=
 has its own place structure:</div>

<div>{.i mi fi lo karce cu ke klama be fi la .montre&#39;al. [be&#39;o] [ke=
&#39;e] be la .bastyn.}</div><div>First, we consider the inner selbri {klam=
a be fi la .montre&#39;al.} as having the place structure &quot;x1 goes to =
x2 from Montreal via x3 in x4.&quot;</div>

<div>Then, we box that selbri inside the ke..ke&#39;e brackets, and use be =
again, to fill the x2, i.e. the destination, with {la .bastyn.}. This yield=
s the place structure &quot;x1 goes to Boston from Montreal via x2 in x3.&q=
uot;</div>

<div>Finally, when we do formal place filling, we use *{fi}* to specify the=
 vehicle, in this case {lo karce}</div><div>&quot;I, in the car, go from Mo=
ntreal to Boston.&quot;</div><div><br></div><div>Although using ke..ke&#39;=
e by itself to create a place structure-transparent &quot;box&quot; is pret=
ty interesting, we can create even what I consider to be the most advanced =
structure changes by using a combination of all the tools outlined above: S=
E, {ke..ke&#39;e}-boxing, {be}, and {bei}.</div>

<div><br></div><div>In sum, I have showed some ways that we can achieve mor=
e complicated argument order by usually using {be}, moving sumti into the b=
ridi head, and using some FA in weird places, and how we can cheat the syst=
em with &quot;forethought bei&quot; by using selbri-boxing.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Any comments, thoughts, violent objections, hate mail, =
or flame wars are appreciated as usual iu</div><div><br></div><div>.i mi=
9;e la tsani mu&#39;o</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 />


--f46d0444e92546ee3904d3ed096c--