Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 13:07:45 -0800 (PST)
From: ianek <janek37@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <e65b3d5b-1bfc-4da4-b457-9250cb17ce3f@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDWDJ3xeZOnb4O-GcOiVYOocVM1YQ31BZt+SNrrd9kDc+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOQ8VDWDJ3xeZOnb4O-GcOiVYOocVM1YQ31BZt+SNrrd9kDc+A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: Advanced Place Stucture Mangling
MIME-Version: 1.0
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="----=_Part_3_10545377.1359061666037"
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

------=_Part_3_10545377.1359061666037
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

I'm sure I've talked about this here before.
It's true that {da de broda be di} is equivalent to {da broda di de}, but 
it's not true that {broda be di} has different place structure than 
{broda}. It's just that the second place is already filled, so {de} takes 
the next unoccupied place. Meanwhile, {da fe de broda be di} is equivalent 
to {da broda de fe di}, so there are two sumti for the second place 
(possibly equivalent to {da broda de jo'u di} or something).
At least that's how it is now, I'm not sure whether you're talking about 
current Lojban or proposing new things.

mu'o mi'e ianek

On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:21:43 AM UTC+1, tsani wrote:
>
> 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.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


------=_Part_3_10545377.1359061666037
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'm sure I've talked about this here before.<br>It's true that {da de broda=
 be di} is equivalent to {da broda di de}, but it's not true that {broda be=
 di} has different place structure than {broda}. It's just that the second =
place is already filled, so {de} takes the next unoccupied place. Meanwhile=
, {da fe de broda be di} is equivalent to {da broda de fe di}, so there are=
 two sumti for the second place (possibly equivalent to {da broda de jo'u d=
i} or something).<div>At least that's how it is now, I'm not sure whether y=
ou're talking about current Lojban or proposing new things.<br><br>mu'o mi'=
e ianek</div><br>On Wednesday, January 23, 2013 5:21:43 AM UTC+1, tsani wro=
te:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;=
border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;"><div>P.S. (as in pre script=
um ?) This e-mail turned out longer than I had originally intended, but I t=
hink that it's worthwhile letting the mailing list in on this discovery I m=
ade just yesterday and expanded today in #lojban. It gets technical at time=
s, but I have provided translations for all the examples, which I have trie=
d 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'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 se=
lbri-level, what's really happening with {be} is that we're creating "new" =
selbri each time we use it. <br>

<br>Consider {lo klama be la .bastyn.}: we create a new selbri with the def=
inition "x1 goes to Boston ..." in order to select the x1 and get a referen=
t 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, howe=
ver, isn't description sumti. (In fact, that's pretty boring.) What's reall=
y 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."<br>

<br>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 pl=
aces *forward*. What repercussions does this have on top-level bridi? <br>

<br>Consider {dunda}, "x1 gives x2 to x3." Given the above proof of place p=
romotion, {dunda be ko'a} should mean "x1 gives ko'a to x2." Considering th=
at {ko'a broda ko'e} equals by definition {ko'a ko'e broda}, {mi do dunda b=
e 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 pseu=
do-"1 3 2" argument order at the cost of *one* syllable. The actual SE conv=
ersion required to achieve the true structure is &nbsp;{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."<br>

<br>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 th=
e bridi-head: {.i mi do lo barda cu vecnu be lo plise} "I you for a lot sol=
d 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 t=
hat case is 1-2-4-3, with a corresponding SE conversion of {te ve te}. <br>

<br>From this, I concluded the generality that<i>&nbsp;when all sumti are m=
oved to the bridi head, the effect of {broda be fa xi ny ko'a} is to send t=
he x_n place to the end of the place structure.</i>&nbsp;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.<div>

<br></div><div>An example, with corresponding argument order and SE convers=
ion:&nbsp;</div><div>{.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}</div>

<div><br></div><div>Before continuing, we must recall that {se} is applied =
before {be}, as {lo se broda be ko'a} has {ko'a} in broda1.</div><div><br><=
/div><div>Combining this type of {be} operation with ordinary SE conversion=
s, 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) "In=
 the amount of enjoying drinking coffee, you are greater than me." 3-1-2 {t=
e se}</div><div>What is truly shocking about this is that we see a {te}-con=
version, but the selbri becomes reduced into a binary predicate, i.e. a pre=
dicate with two argument slots, because of the {be ko'a}.</div>

<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'd ne=
cessarily want it to be.) Indeed we have {bei} for that. But, we can think =
of the following as "forethought bei."&nbsp;</div>

<div><br></div><div>Using {ke} to create a bracket, we can box one selbri i=
nside 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 inne=
r 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 alrea=
dy has linkargs, i.e. injected sumti with {be}, we can't move the outer {be=
} inside.&nbsp;</div>

<div><br></div><div>Consider {klama be la .bastyn.}, "x1 goes to Boston fro=
m x2 ..." We can't attach another {be} to this selbri because it would be u=
ngrammatical, 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 fro=
m Montreal via x2 in vehicle x3. In cases where the first sumti does not en=
d in a selbri, the use of the second {be} will cause (a lot) of elision.&nb=
sp;</div>

<div><br></div><div>Although "forethought" {bei} might appear utterly usele=
ss 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 {b=
roda 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 chea=
t, 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'al. [be'o] [ke'e] be l=
a .bastyn.}</div><div>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."</div>

<div>Then, we box that selbri inside the ke..ke'e brackets, and use be agai=
n, to fill the x2, i.e. the destination, with {la .bastyn.}. This yields th=
e place structure "x1 goes to Boston from Montreal via x2 in x3."</div>

<div>Finally, when we do formal place filling, we use *{fi}* to specify the=
 vehicle, in this case {lo karce}</div><div>"I, in the car, go from Montrea=
l to Boston."</div><div><br></div><div>Although using ke..ke'e by itself to=
 create a place structure-transparent "box" is pretty interesting, we can c=
reate even what I consider to be the most advanced structure changes by usi=
ng a combination of all the tools outlined above: SE, {ke..ke'e}-boxing, {b=
e}, 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 "forethought bei" 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'e =
la tsani mu'o</div>
</blockquote>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; 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 />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3De=
n">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out=
">https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out</a>.<br />
&nbsp;<br />
&nbsp;<br />

------=_Part_3_10545377.1359061666037--