Received-SPF: none (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) client-ip=192.94.73.24;
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2014 19:08:55 -0400
From: Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
Message-ID: <20141022230855.GG2128@gonzales>
References: <20141018004531.GE20049@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c8JQsr+7zbrdos-9Wm1t8w+sH1SANSO6e_MGV4ZDjcow@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141018180946.GF20049@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2dUSzYCWm+CNeNugkeU=aO6mWXSY3gn5dc+8XNU3GpasQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141018233648.GA29040@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2eUqpe3AwAY-DxmONhxM3Pj5kyhTm605bAnD3iJEHVgug@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141021010639.GB11705@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2c+ObFDqF_TZTQMjGJRZfZxpoY-pFB4_canWM3Lpdgvsw@mail.gmail.com>
 <20141022002214.GD25753@gonzales>
 <CAO7tK2djRZbrg-9HH49qPWH=ds4Tnmj+H26o-L9cywiM3jos7g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAO7tK2djRZbrg-9HH49qPWH=ds4Tnmj+H26o-L9cywiM3jos7g@mail.gmail.com>
X-cunselcu'a-valsi: krefu
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.22 (2013-10-16)
X-Original-Sender: mbays@sdf.org
X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com;       spf=neutral
 (google.com: mbays@sdf.org does not designate permitted sender hosts) smtp.mail=mbays@sdf.org
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>
X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-)
X-Spam_score: -1.9
X-Spam_score_int: -18
X-Spam_bar: -


--Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Wednesday, 2014-10-22 at 18:13 -0300 - Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail=
=2Ecom>:

> On Tue, Oct 21, 2014 at 9:22 PM, Martin Bays <mbays@sdf.org> wrote:
> > I don't know, the "TT-skimming" semantics seem to give useful results in
> > at least some cases.
>=20
> broda .i [jek tag] bo brode
> -> broda .i jek brode .i (je?) ga nai ge broda gi brode gi [tag] gi broda
> gi brode

Yes (ignoring the problems with repeating things).

> (I don't remember now if forethought tag-connective needs a "se" or not
> with respect to afterthought tag-connective.

Depends on whether the tag is a tense...

ba gi broda gi zajba  =3D=3D  broda .i ba bo zajba
bai gi broda gi zajba  =3D=3D  zajba .i bai bo broda

Which reminds me - which way should
    broda .i ba je bai bo zajba
work, or should it be some mix? If a mix, how about with {joi}?

I pretty arbitrarily decided for tersmu that if there's a tense involved
in the tag, then the whole thing acts like a tense.

> ) So for half of the connectives (those with TT F rather than TT T), the =
tag
> is more or less meaningless. Those would be: jenai, naje, najenai, najana=
i,
> jonai, naju, sejunai, and the contradiction one that lojban doesn't have.

Yes. It would also mean that e.g. {broda na gi'a ba bo brode} is not the
same as {na broda .ja ba bo brode}, which could be surprising.

> I think it might also make sense to analyse tag-connectives as if they we=
re
> ordinary tags on the second connectand, with the first connectand acting =
as
> their complement, so:
>=20
> broda .i [jek tag] bo brode
> -> broda .i [jek] brode [(se} tag] lo nu broda

But if broda doesn't occur, what is {lo nu broda} referring to here?

--Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAlRIOQcACgkQULC7OLX7LNZpFwCggNXvyQxKCETafg4grsIAklWP
ngkAoOsVAPxThMIgqicRkXnEMogHQob2
=U+4K
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Wb5NtZlyOqqy58h0--