Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of nictytan@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::22f;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51AC6A84.9050504@gmx.de>
References: <CAOQ8VDWG3mUQSPS04Au+6f5cHabVGn8VJf1VxEG1uxQscgTUwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <51AC6A84.9050504@gmx.de>
From: Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2013 12:02:59 -0400
Message-ID: <CAOQ8VDXH-XLcV-R_NGsu-xzDzjkHFaSg15nWbgsSdzNpK+NKMA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Question about GIJA
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <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=e89a8ff24eaf77733604de421a0e
X-Spam_score: -0.1
X-Spam_score_int: 0
X-Spam_bar: /

--e89a8ff24eaf77733604de421a0e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On 3 June 2013 06:05, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> I'm afraid this wouldn't be compatible with the forethought sentence
> connective + BAI bo (which isn't currently grammatical, but which I
> proposed a while back):
>
>      (1) .i je gi broda gi bai bo brode
>
> should be the forethought version of:
>
>      (2) .i broda .i je bai bo brode
>

Instead of having the tag be in an afterthought position, why can't we move
it into the front? e.g. {.i je bai bo gi broda gi brode}


>
> I don't know why (1) is not grammatical even under current rules (with
> {ge} instead of {je gi} of course), and I feel it should be.
>
> With {gi bai bo}, there'd be "ambiguity" (sa'e, a problem):
>
>      (3) .i je gi broda [gi bai bo] brode [gi brodi]
>
> Is the [gi bai bo] a bridi-tail connective, or does it act as the
> seperator for the sentence-jeks as in (1)? If the former, then [gi brodi]
> must be added to finish the jeks and the option for BAI+bo as in (1) is
> lost entirely.
>
>
>
Indeed, there's a problem if we let {gi bai bo} do what you propose, which
I why I suggesting changing that form to one that is fully forethought
instead of a mix of fore- and afterthought. I think that preserving this
odd mixture of both connective styles isn't worth sacrificing the ability
to make TAG bridi-tail afterthought connectives that don't require a
preexisting connective.

Even though no other afterthought bridi-tail connectives need {bo},
requiring {bo} after {gi TAG} in my proposal is in line with requiring {bo}
 after {.i TAG}, with roughly the same rationale, too.

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

-- 
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.


--e89a8ff24eaf77733604de421a0e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">On 3 June 2013 06:05, selpa&#39;i <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a=
 href=3D"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</s=
pan> wrote:<div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc sol=
id;padding-left:1ex">


I&#39;m afraid this wouldn&#39;t be compatible with the forethought sentenc=
e connective + BAI bo (which isn&#39;t currently grammatical, but which I p=
roposed a while back):<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0(1) .i je gi broda gi bai bo brode<br>
<br>
should be the forethought version of:<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0(2) .i broda .i je bai bo brode<br></blockquote><div><br></div><=
div style>Instead of having the tag be in an afterthought position, why can=
&#39;t we move it into the front? e.g. {.i je bai bo gi broda gi brode}</di=
v>

<div>=A0</div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;=
border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
I don&#39;t know why (1) is not grammatical even under current rules (with =
{ge} instead of {je gi} of course), and I feel it should be.<br>
<br>
With {gi bai bo}, there&#39;d be &quot;ambiguity&quot; (sa&#39;e, a problem=
):<br>
<br>
=A0 =A0 =A0(3) .i je gi broda [gi bai bo] brode [gi brodi]<br>
<br>
Is the [gi bai bo] a bridi-tail connective, or does it act as the seperator=
 for the sentence-jeks as in (1)? If the former, then [gi brodi] must be ad=
ded to finish the jeks and the option for BAI+bo as in (1) is lost entirely=
.<br>


<br><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br></div></div></blockquote><d=
iv><br></div><div style>Indeed, there&#39;s a problem if we let {gi bai bo}=
 do what you propose, which I why I suggesting changing that form to one th=
at is fully forethought instead of a mix of fore- and afterthought. I think=
 that preserving this odd mixture of both connective styles isn&#39;t worth=
 sacrificing the ability to make TAG bridi-tail afterthought connectives th=
at don&#39;t require a preexisting connective.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>Even though no other afterthought bridi-tai=
l connectives need {bo}, requiring {bo} after {gi TAG} in my proposal is in=
 line with requiring {bo} =A0after {.i TAG}, with roughly the same rational=
e, too.</div>

<div style><br></div><div style>.i mi&#39;e la tsani mu&#39;o</div></div></=
div></div>

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;lojban&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.<br />
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.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 />

--e89a8ff24eaf77733604de421a0e--