Received: from mail-wi0-f191.google.com ([209.85.212.191]:58853)
	by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.80.1)
	(envelope-from <lojban+bncBDNZFNNFVAHRBMPKWGQAKGQED6C2FGA@googlegroups.com>)
	id 1XQe64-00036d-VK
	for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:45 -0700
Received: by mail-wi0-f191.google.com with SMTP id hi2sf1388038wib.28
        for <lojban-list-archive@lojban.org>; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806;
        h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references
         :in-reply-to:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results
         :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help
         :list-archive:sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=sFUSixvCwQsoZkF/R3QyRUjD98ASpECBOz/XuiFFITA=;
        b=UGCbxWUcKbve+V3w/F9MW6zQ2wd1kKOdJFpXSY4FWxFzpts/ug/U81OeNXuUI5nmkL
         A0QsJijKLiWMIBmmXN9h+EQqw8UsL1OrLMqhOH4n9KnOK6n6m01s0zko9MGICjK26N1l
         bAa8/glg26TIAqiS1/3xIhHQtgXBFuhKOsmke5qn83Hg0LLXv+mQN2Nj2vg/NgdFw7/8
         zl60iBZtHJaa4yG7ZlNA6tZWCjKPuaYqblsP1E32ZTKpScWzm2SOlKJcCKgZZxodD7Fw
         WbkFE1gjv2wCC+AyV8UybcinMADNO9gIVL1A7EtRPHSP/iQgVb9VZ6QaOXwLV5R1MKTz
         BT4w==
X-Received: by 10.180.99.8 with SMTP id em8mr70418wib.15.1410102578036;
        Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received: by 10.180.97.231 with SMTP id ed7ls281296wib.3.gmail; Sun, 07 Sep
 2014 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.194.205.138 with SMTP id lg10mr17084wjc.5.1410102577557;
        Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-we0-x232.google.com (mail-we0-x232.google.com [2a00:1450:400c:c03::232])
        by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id v3si422662wib.1.2014.09.07.08.09.37
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::232 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c03::232;
Received: by mail-we0-x232.google.com with SMTP id q58so2051707wes.23
        for <lojban@googlegroups.com>; Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.195.12.4 with SMTP id em4mr3616365wjd.98.1410102577477;
        Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.0.4] (97e1e8ee.skybroadband.com. [151.225.232.238])
        by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k5sm8533432wiv.21.2014.09.07.08.09.36
        for <multiple recipients>
        (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
        Sun, 07 Sep 2014 08:09:36 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <540C7532.7030200@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2014 16:09:38 +0100
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120711 Thunderbird/14.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Why left-grouping of tanru?
References: <d2afd5ff-9d7c-4edf-9b53-9058b4df7a53@googlegroups.com> <CAKOEKkSzN=Soa4CE5Eop28Z5yFLVaQRGpEJTR6CZ2Y=osnWFAg@mail.gmail.com> <6a886330-7e72-4b50-ba11-54878f241243@googlegroups.com> <CACf3dP=hWWu=eVV07vRyEKdyyoD3ww2TFsYhWkdwFHjzO_psHw@mail.gmail.com> <180d17c4-dc98-43bd-8b59-8841c86379e7@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <180d17c4-dc98-43bd-8b59-8841c86379e7@googlegroups.com>
X-Original-Sender: and.rosta@gmail.com
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=pass
 (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c03::232
 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=and.rosta@gmail.com;       dkim=pass
 header.i=@gmail.com;       dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
List-ID: <lojban.googlegroups.com>
X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417
List-Post: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/post>, <mailto:lojban@googlegroups.com>
List-Help: <http://groups.google.com/support/>, <mailto:lojban+help@googlegroups.com>
List-Archive: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
List-Subscribe: <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>, <mailto:lojban+subscribe@googlegroups.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:googlegroups-manage+1004133512417+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com>,
 <http://groups.google.com/group/lojban/subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Note: SpamAssassin invocation failed

TR NS, On 06/09/2014 16:55:
> On Friday, September 5, 2014 3:48:57 AM UTC-4, And Rosta wrote:
>
>     On 4 Sep 2014 20:50, "TR NS" <tran...@gmail.com> wrote:
>      > Also this isn't just my bias. Although it is hard for me to speak =
for any language beyond English, but there are known patterns from which I =
am drawing my opinion. See http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1473.pd=
f <http://www.lingref.com/cpp/wccfl/25/paper1473.pdf> for example.
>
>     How is that paper relevant to the thread topic?
>
> It is just one example of a paper on the patterns of adjective order. Act=
ually I just found this site which is more to the point: http://learnenglis=
h.britishcouncil.org/en/english-grammar/adjectives/order-adjectives If you =
look at the order you can see they entail a right-to-left application. Left=
-to-right application only occurs when one of the adjectives themselves nee=
ds to be modified, i.e. there is a sub-clause, so to speak.

I still don't see how semantic constraints on the ordering of English attri=
butive adjectives leads you to conclude that you have empirical warrant for=
 believing 'right grouping' is cross-linguistically more natural than 'left=
 grouping'.

Somewhat less irrelevant would be frequencies of left and right grouping in=
 English binominal compounds ("door handle designs", "student handle design=
s") -- somebody's probably studied that already, tho I've never seen such a=
 study myself. English allows both left and right grouping and distinguishe=
s them prosodically.

In iterable adjunction-like constructions, one would expect, given consider=
ations of parsing, that head--dependent ordering would be very strictly lef=
t-grouping and dependent--head ordering would be pretty strongly left-group=
ing.

--And.

--=20
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 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.