Received: from mail-pb0-f61.google.com ([209.85.160.61]:62649) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UcGii-00020N-Af for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:01:01 -0700 Received: by mail-pb0-f61.google.com with SMTP id rp2sf239692pbb.26 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:43 -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:mime-version :x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=Rpz//PGsmAQn5YiY66W8aPpCDNFpJTwLpnh8eePLu88=; b=W2kN4a5wIJ0bxUMstSN+LB0NzSGdXYvPUd24GweKRnPSNDLYQrsKs+ansafOk+bRZI fb7jvISTHUc0OPug4ec+zLPWjA4jXkIpLrCnplgfyjfSrLUXN0CcuITreh1YPi1O+l6z rkqUtbooMmBr/4hGKHTGJcwPxfcfOr8fMgKn73h31r74VvydOTm6IpLM4s1eZ5Bj8NOl VWa69LgVWnqQxKVNDY9c1aAqM0Vy+9TPstio+2mpoCCncnjkpW5x5vEq1h7Lb95MwfMc gRyNT2Fx06OdXFbjmUGnh28yiMnin60HVcZh4jH9a9I3bGKNLHyPapqRSDURZgu/onnV vjeQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=x-received:x-beenthere:x-received:received-spf:mime-version :x-received:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from: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=Rpz//PGsmAQn5YiY66W8aPpCDNFpJTwLpnh8eePLu88=; b=f2gXcyItqGfU/r8MFO3DcAst5S33uGuQmcyucc1byBd1P+vhFjG6GfH+3zHUCoUbr3 MLsPBU8kOc2qaiT5rZEVwpALGqoaKoH2QcbAnayg5VAr0EwqLPseWnz36fvYFpeaUylV XZR7rN7Dly0wS36LgcqFzGdUyXmsLNlersRF1yyJpJ+Y1M3eYOUHOexnvCgPnKNNlYA+ fuC6u/yWjBrPeI96B2mUWkJvu7woCjYUatULtpoVpOhyLkz4Arcbb0J+jwq94D/2hohL 5zVd6AY7WrohwzVj6Jwjmh+cMaOztScTP0s9XV2jAkyLKlD8V6jJ8KLvvSe+CA99YscL ir0Q== X-Received: by 10.50.29.17 with SMTP id f17mr415497igh.7.1368543643368; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:43 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.43.131 with SMTP id w3ls2770625igl.4.canary; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.42.254.194 with SMTP id nf2mr566361icb.11.1368543642659; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id eg2si1782998igb.2.2013.05.14.08.00.42 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c; Received: by mail-ie0-x22c.google.com with SMTP id 16so1259682iea.3 for ; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.61.234 with SMTP id t10mr2375195igr.29.1368543642512; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.102.74 with HTTP; Tue, 14 May 2013 08:00:42 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <518FC9B5.1090805@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 11:00:42 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Higher-precedence Grouping with {bo} Is Impossible for TAG Sentence Connectives From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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=047d7bdc07e2abf58004dcaee549 X-Spam-Score: -0.1 (/) X-Spam_score: -0.1 X-Spam_score_int: 0 X-Spam_bar: / --047d7bdc07e2abf58004dcaee549 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jacob Errington wrote: > On 12 May 2013 12:56, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG < > lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: > >> More broadly, really complex constructs are more easily expressed using >> gi'ebo/gi'eke for right and left grouping in afterthought, and ga/gi for >> forethought. Since these constructs connect multiple "bridi-tails" (selbri >> plus trailing sumti) within one .i sentence, for maximal flexibility, you >> have to but all the sumti including x1 after the selbri. These are also >> described in that same chapter of CLL. >> > > Furthermore, which I didn't realize earlier, the gi'eke construct is in my > opinion unintuitive because it breaks the ordinary rules of ke..ke'e > brackets: > > {.i broda gi'eke brode ke'e brode gi'e brodu} doesn't parse, even though > {ke brode ke'e brode} does outside of a gihek. This makes it impossible to > achieve in a gihek the tanru parse {(broda brode) (brodi (brodo brodu))} > which would be done with a combination of ke..ke'e and bo as such: {.i ke > broda brode ke'e bo brodo bo brodu} > > My suggestion would be to remoke gi'eke brackets altogether because they > cause unexpected behaviour and limit the possibilities of our speech more > than anything. They also have presumably little to no usage. > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > {bo} is hackish, but its meaning is at least determined by the grammar. Grammatically the worst thing about it is failure to elide certain terminators. For example, if {I TAG BO} were instead {I TAG BOhOI} or something, {.i fi'o broda fe'u bo} could be {.i fi'o broda bo'oi} with the {fe'u} elided. This isn't that bad, however, all things said; I wouldn't say it's worth having its own cmavo. Incidentally, why is it that the PEG can't make {.i fi'o broda bo mi brode} parse correctly, whereas it can fix things like JOI connecting LE-sumti without {ku}? Evidently {ke} is actually even worse, since you can't coerce {GIhA KE SELBRI} to not make a gihe-kek. Why were these designed to be so awkwardly general purpose? mi'e la latro'a mu'o On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jacob Errington wrote: > On 12 May 2013 12:56, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG < > lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: > >> More broadly, really complex constructs are more easily expressed using >> gi'ebo/gi'eke for right and left grouping in afterthought, and ga/gi for >> forethought. Since these constructs connect multiple "bridi-tails" (selbri >> plus trailing sumti) within one .i sentence, for maximal flexibility, you >> have to but all the sumti including x1 after the selbri. These are also >> described in that same chapter of CLL. >> > > Furthermore, which I didn't realize earlier, the gi'eke construct is in my > opinion unintuitive because it breaks the ordinary rules of ke..ke'e > brackets: > > {.i broda gi'eke brode ke'e brode gi'e brodu} doesn't parse, even though > {ke brode ke'e brode} does outside of a gihek. This makes it impossible to > achieve in a gihek the tanru parse {(broda brode) (brodi (brodo brodu))} > which would be done with a combination of ke..ke'e and bo as such: {.i ke > broda brode ke'e bo brodo bo brodu} > > My suggestion would be to remoke gi'eke brackets altogether because they > cause unexpected behaviour and limit the possibilities of our speech more > than anything. They also have presumably little to no usage. > > .i mi'e la tsani mu'o > > >> >> >> lojbab >> -- >> Bob LeChevalier lojbab@lojban.org www.lojban.org >> President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc. >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> . >> >> >> > -- > 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. > > > -- 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. --047d7bdc07e2abf58004dcaee549 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jacob Errington <<= a href=3D"mailto:nictytan@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">nictytan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 May 2013 12:56, Bob LeChevalier, President and Foun= der - LLG <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
More broadly, really complex constructs are more easily expressed using=20 gi'ebo/gi'eke for right and left grouping in afterthought, and ga/g= i for forethought. =A0Since these constructs connect multiple "bridi-tails&= quot;=20 (selbri plus trailing sumti) within one .i sentence, for maximal=20 flexibility, you have to but all the sumti including x1 after the=20 selbri. =A0These are also described in that same chapter of CLL.

Furthermore, which I didn'= t realize earlier, the gi'eke construct is in my opinion unintuitive=20 because it breaks the ordinary rules of ke..ke'e brackets:

{.i broda gi'eke brode ke'e brode gi'e brodu} do= esn't=20 parse, even though {ke brode ke'e brode} does outside of a gihek. This= =20 makes it impossible to achieve in a gihek the tanru parse {(broda brode) (brodi (brodo brodu))} which would be done with a combination of=20 ke..ke'e and bo as such: {.i ke broda brode ke'e bo brodo bo brodu}=

My suggestion would be to remoke gi'eke=20 brackets altogether because they cause unexpected behaviour and limit=20 the possibilities of our speech more than anything. They also have=20 presumably little to no usage.
.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
=A0
{bo} is hackish, but its meaning is a= t least determined by the grammar. Grammatically the worst thing about it i= s failure to elide certain terminators. For example, if {I TAG BO} were ins= tead {I TAG BOhOI} or something, {.i fi'o broda fe'u bo} could be {= .i fi'o broda bo'oi} with the {fe'u} elided. This isn't tha= t bad, however, all things said; I wouldn't say it's worth having i= ts own cmavo. Incidentally, why is it that the PEG can't make {.i fi= 9;o broda bo mi brode} parse correctly, whereas it can fix things like JOI = connecting LE-sumti without {ku}?

Evidently {ke} is actually even worse, since you can't coerce= {GIhA KE SELBRI} to not make a gihe-kek. Why were these designed to be so = awkwardly general purpose?

mi'e la latro'a mu'o


On Tue, May 1= 4, 2013 at 10:21 AM, Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com> w= rote:
On 12 May 2013 12:56, Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LL= G <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
More broadly, really complex constructs are more easil= y expressed using gi'ebo/gi'eke for right and left grouping in afte= rthought, and ga/gi for forethought. =A0Since these constructs connect mult= iple "bridi-tails" (selbri plus trailing sumti) within one .i sen= tence, for maximal flexibility, you have to but all the sumti including x1 = after the selbri. =A0These are also described in that same chapter of CLL.<= /span>

Furthermore, which I didn'= t realize earlier, the gi'eke construct is in my opinion unintuitive be= cause it breaks the ordinary rules of ke..ke'e brackets:

{.i broda gi'eke brode ke'e brode gi'e brodu} do= esn't parse, even though {ke brode ke'e brode} does outside of a gi= hek. This makes it impossible to achieve in a gihek the tanru parse {(broda= brode) (brodi (brodo brodu))} which would be done with a combination of ke= ..ke'e and bo as such: {.i ke broda brode ke'e bo brodo bo brodu}

My suggestion would be to remoke gi'eke brack= ets altogether because they cause unexpected behaviour and limit the possib= ilities of our speech more than anything. They also have presumably little = to no usage.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o
=A0
=


lojbab
--
Bob LeChevalier =A0 =A0lojbab@lojban.org =A0 =A0www.lojban.org
President and Founder, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
<= div>

--
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.


--
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.
=A0
=A0

--
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.
 
 
--047d7bdc07e2abf58004dcaee549--