Received: from mail-pd0-f192.google.com ([209.85.192.192]:45658) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1USIUH-0008C4-8V for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:54 -0700 Received: by mail-pd0-f192.google.com with SMTP id 3sf404646pdj.9 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:x-received :mime-version: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=vtz9BmcG30RHoZVHHErn8dFiaq7G0k3I7hIgl0oVyv4=; b=cQ3jnK2FdjLnF5eCHIrS6fIQKJBZAobz9KwnKEyDqWmj2zLbOSDJZugkGAFaSr63m0 TTk52UeypGgJr1xUIhNowLunX5qMpHr88uGluugUcA02khW6fZERJeBM+YNlymzgAIwa L8SauM/Qo7JbxTDpPvj8U2n+w3rQDjghPbS9KBjD/twfPNSe1+kZh9ZprmMPBuGP9PQq ksFEx1RYtt4rjm50TJ+GXMm19rkpu7NZkQLgyQg98tePrZ+jj5Ib2bckhXyxHyLz30tY ek3lKDbj8uIQtHU50gG3m7j7V4DOg6+dm0d/is5x8Itci/VE5amZBVshfVuGjkMQRuoE xyUw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:x-received :mime-version: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=vtz9BmcG30RHoZVHHErn8dFiaq7G0k3I7hIgl0oVyv4=; b=ffLYYx1Zpz/3wGQv8nv5mbL/FRZaHbZUodxajcP9zL7o3Tc2ToWW99KajYHfg9B0aG iMNkQ48gHon4aDm50AuQaoUwgvSOzPHs1n739x21M/t8xABg+/7RTigkHeOVaCg+8YfC 338fzJ+maiFn/PIwAm1Pd7omIBrtIDv86XfCH3VtQDJUupFjpknOrlD7JyVuWYYZo9bu TitM9/LLkaUygyR8kcjejIQRslIgmXJ233bc+3VUkeJ2Mzt5nS9LtT+cNgT/1j2JNobI ETJVf5VHyFw45YpVYPGKmR61eZrqKvhNe8csy4ax4eTFfkv0lVR5+nl6Qf/mSdFVV5iA Xo7w== X-Received: by 10.49.127.145 with SMTP id ng17mr488934qeb.9.1366167158031; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:38 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.49.18.42 with SMTP id t10ls612719qed.35.gmail; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.58.155.231 with SMTP id vz7mr1829552veb.21.1366167157639; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vc0-f179.google.com (mail-vc0-f179.google.com [209.85.220.179]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id yh19si669208vdb.0.2013.04.16.19.52.37 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 209.85.220.179 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.220.179; Received: by mail-vc0-f179.google.com with SMTP id hz11so957931vcb.38 for ; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.52.177.229 with SMTP id ct5mr2987719vdc.113.1366167157567; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.220.103.131 with HTTP; Tue, 16 Apr 2013 19:52:17 -0700 (PDT) From: Jacob Errington Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2013 22:52:17 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: [lojban] Forethought Tanru-Internal TAG Connectives 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 209.85.220.179 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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3071cd32217a0604da8594c1 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --20cf3071cd32217a0604da8594c1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I'll get straight to the point: they don't exist. The lack of consistency annoys me, as I'm sure it does others, too. It's part of what makes me in favour of the connective reform involving such things as {gije} as a replacement for {gi'e}, which would equally provide us with a means for producing non-logical bridi-tail afterthought connectives. .i mi'e la tsani mu'o P.S. It occurred to me that they didn't exist when I tried translating "We do what we must because we can" as *{.i zukte lo semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}, but {TAGgi} only works for non-tanru-internal forethought connectives. Using {zukte semu'igi lo se bilga gi lo se zifre} is out of the question because the meaning is different. I want to get at the meaning of "we do the (things that we must do because we can do them)" rather than "(we do the things that we must do) (because we can do them)." Of course I can resort to a zo'e-noi construct as a patch, but that's far more inelegant: {.i zukte zo'e noi ke'a semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}. In sum, the fact that these types of connectives don't exist is frustrating and inconsistent and should be fixed in order for the language to be in accordance with its philosophy. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to lojban@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. --20cf3071cd32217a0604da8594c1 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I'll get straight to the point: they don't exist.<= div style>The lack of consistency annoys me, as I'm sure it does others= , too. It's part of what makes me in favour of the connective reform in= volving such things as {gije} as a replacement for {gi'e}, which would = equally provide us with a means for producing non-logical bridi-tail aftert= hought connectives.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

P.S. It occurred to me that they didn't exist w= hen I tried translating "We do what we must because we can" as *{= .i zukte lo semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}, but {TAGgi} only works for = non-tanru-internal forethought connectives. Using {zukte semu'igi lo se= bilga gi lo se zifre} is out of the question because the meaning is differ= ent. I want to get at the meaning of "we do the (things that we must d= o because we can do them)" rather than "(we do the things that we= must do) (because we can do them)." Of course I can resort to a zo= 9;e-noi construct as a patch, but that's far more inelegant: {.i zukte = zo'e noi ke'a semu'igi se bilga gi se zifre}. In sum, the fact = that these types of connectives don't exist is frustrating and inconsis= tent and should be fixed in order for the language to be in accordance with= its philosophy.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
--20cf3071cd32217a0604da8594c1--