Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.20 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.20;
Message-ID: <516E715C.9040502@gmx.de>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 11:54:36 +0200
From: selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130328 Thunderbird/17.0.5
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Forethought Tanru-Internal TAG Connectives
References: <CAOQ8VDU1FdpZXmVOXT9zPS1kxOHQxd_4LSpUOn_Yp1k2qwytHg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAOQ8VDU1FdpZXmVOXT9zPS1kxOHQxd_4LSpUOn_Yp1k2qwytHg@mail.gmail.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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
X-Spam_score: 0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 1
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:  la tsani cu cusku di'e > I'll get straight to the point: they
    don't exist. In general, there is a lack of forethought TAG connectives [1].
    You can say {TAG gi broda gi brode}, but not *{ge BAI gi/bo? broda gi brode},
    although you can do it with afterthoughts: {broda gi'e TAG bo brode}. And
    then there the reverse also doesn't work; that is, TAG afterthoughts without
    logical connectives like *{ko'a bai bo ko'e}. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (0.1 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (seladwa[at]gmx.de)
 -0.0 SPF_PASS               SPF: sender matches SPF record
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
  0.0 T_DKIM_INVALID         DKIM-Signature header exists but is not valid

la tsani cu cusku di'e
> I'll get straight to the point: they don't exist.

In general, there is a lack of forethought TAG connectives [1]. You can 
say {TAG gi broda gi brode}, but not *{ge BAI gi/bo? broda gi brode}, 
although you can do it with afterthoughts: {broda gi'e TAG bo brode}. 
And then there the reverse also doesn't work; that is, TAG afterthoughts 
without logical connectives like *{ko'a bai bo ko'e}.

Also, the current parsers don't like {ge broda gi ba bo brode}.

> 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.

That makes us at least four or five then.

> 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.

Do you want a forethought version of {lo se bilga je mu'i bo se bilga} 
or one without the logical connective? I think both should be allowed to 
exist, but currently neither does.

(Under GIJA) would something like {se mu'i gu broda gi brode} work? As a 
reminder, GU would be the GI of tanru forethoughts (GUJA replacing GUhA).

> 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)." 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.

Amen.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

[1] This table (from CLL Chapter 14, Section 20) clearly shows that 
forethoughts don't come with TAG support:

   construct   afterth. foreth.  afterth.  foreth.
                     logical  logical  non-log.  non-log.
     ---------   -------  -------  --------  --------

     bridi       ijek*    gek     ijoik*     joigik
     sumti       ek*      gek     joik*      joigik
     bridi-tails gihek*   gek     ---        joigik
     termsets    ek*      gek     joik*      joigik
     tanru parts jek      guhek   joik*      ---
     operands    ek*      gek     joik*      joigik
     operators   jek      guhek   joik       ---
     tenses/modals   jek      ---     joik       ---
     abstractors jek      ---     joik       ---

An asterisk (*) indicates that tensed connection is permitted.

-- 
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.