Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4003:c01::234;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales>
References: <20140927163121.GO28734@gonzales>
	<3c3b1c5e-cac2-42df-9d67-553a849789d3@googlegroups.com>
	<20140927192952.GS28734@gonzales>
	<bf1a257f-4b62-4d03-ad77-5bbfb1b91870@googlegroups.com>
	<20140927195841.GT28734@gonzales>
	<5349359c-f884-4976-a3e1-b0610eabeff6@googlegroups.com>
	<CAO7tK2c5fi5d+1Rc=1eXJEG_1a8QMeGe6Uy5psMYAWqkTO3ciQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20140928013358.GB28734@gonzales>
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:56:00 -0300
Message-ID: <CAO7tK2ds0RxZnHoUSodwty5hjWk+6hpKPj_Y8NoVy+paOc44sg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jorge_Llamb=C3=ADas?= <jjllambias@gmail.com>
To: 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=001a1133061e05dd0005041faca7
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a1133061e05dd0005041faca7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:

>
> To make it work the way you suggest, we'd have to have sumbasti also
> allowed to have non-constant references, and break the compositionality
> of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some other
> cases, e.g. {da poi broda}). Do you think it could be made to work and
> would be a good idea?
>

The way I'm thinking about it, "fyno" would have all the values of the
function as its referents, so it is a plural constant, and "fyno pe da"
restricts those values to the one(s) associated with da. So instead of
using "fyno" to refer to a function, I would use it to refer to the values
of the function, which is only what you end up using anyway. You only use
the values of the function, "li ma'o fyno mo'e da lo'o", never "fyno" by
itself. It's just a different notation for the same thing.

Lojban doesn't have an open class of function words (only the closed class:
LAhE), so if you are going to have function terms you will be representing
them with a composite expression one way or another. It seems to me that
using "fy pe da" is just easier to read than "li ma'o fy mo'e da lo'o".
Allowing "pe" in your final output seems no more harmful than allowing
"li".

In your output form you don't distinguish the definitions (except when they
involve "le", which get marked as "ju'o nai") from the assertions. Perhaps
they could be given different illocutionary force, maybe "ca'e". So the
output for "[ju'a] ro da poi verba cu prami lo mamta be da" would look
something like:

ca'e ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u fyno pe da mamta da
.i [ju'a] ro da poi ke'a verba ku'o zo'u da prami fyno pe da

mu'o mi'e xorxes

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

--001a1133061e05dd0005041faca7
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 10:33 PM, Martin Bays <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:mbays@sdf.org" target=3D"_blank">mbays@sdf.org</a>&gt;</span=
> wrote:</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:r=
gb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><div class=
=3D"h5"><br></div></div>
To make it work the way you suggest, we&#39;d have to have sumbasti also<br=
>
allowed to have non-constant references, and break the compositionality<br>
of restrictive clauses (which admittedly is already broken in some other<br=
>
cases, e.g. {da poi broda}). Do you think it could be made to work and<br>
would be a good idea?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The way I&#39;m t=
hinking about it, &quot;fyno&quot; would have all the values of the functio=
n as its referents, so it is a plural constant, and &quot;fyno pe da&quot; =
restricts those values to the one(s) associated with da. So instead of usin=
g &quot;fyno&quot; to refer to a function, I would use it to refer to the v=
alues of the function, which is only what you end up using anyway. You only=
 use the values of the function, &quot;li ma&#39;o fyno mo&#39;e da lo&#39;=
o&quot;, never &quot;fyno&quot; by itself. It&#39;s just a different notati=
on for the same thing.</div><div><br></div><div>Lojban doesn&#39;t have an =
open class of function words (only the closed class: LAhE), so if you are g=
oing to have function terms you will be representing them with a composite =
expression one way or another. It seems to me that using &quot;fy pe da&quo=
t; is just easier to read than &quot;li ma&#39;o fy mo&#39;e da lo&#39;o&qu=
ot;. Allowing &quot;pe&quot; in your final output seems no more harmful tha=
n allowing &quot;li&quot;.=C2=A0</div><div><br></div><div>In your output fo=
rm you don&#39;t distinguish the definitions (except when they involve &quo=
t;le&quot;, which get marked as &quot;ju&#39;o nai&quot;) from the assertio=
ns. Perhaps they could be given different illocutionary force, maybe &quot;=
ca&#39;e&quot;. So the output for &quot;[ju&#39;a] ro da poi verba cu prami=
 lo mamta be da&quot; would look something like:</div><div><br></div>ca&#39=
;e ro da poi ke&#39;a verba ku&#39;o zo&#39;u fyno pe da mamta da<br>.i [ju=
&#39;a] ro da poi ke&#39;a verba ku&#39;o zo&#39;u da prami fyno pe da</div=
><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></div><div class=3D"gmail_quote">mu&#39;o m=
i&#39;e xorxes</div><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><br></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 <a href=3D"mailto:lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojban+unsub=
scribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http:=
//groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br />
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout">http=
s://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br />

--001a1133061e05dd0005041faca7--