Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22d;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4183774c-dee7-412d-80fc-a22fd8c9cc7b@googlegroups.com>
References: <3a378de3-6fd3-44c1-ae6e-960ef6ee27ea@googlegroups.com>
	<4183774c-dee7-412d-80fc-a22fd8c9cc7b@googlegroups.com>
Date: Sun, 10 May 2015 09:12:13 -0400
Message-ID: <CA+gZtgJdvGT-ZGhbjBLSB+ZxNkDR_edmE6k0TimgZGNrf0a0bQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Proposal for new cmavo: {vau'u}
From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1147d518816bf50515ba02c8
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.6
X-Spam_score_int: -15
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a1147d518816bf50515ba02c8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

That's actually pretty hard to my understanding. When you have an {.i},
basically everything left outstanding has to be over because now a
"sentence" construct is over. There is no corresponding construct for this
situation. So while it would be easy in principle to just backtrack and
count, this isn't actually how the grammar works. Indeed, if this were how
the grammar works it would be a lot harder to be sure that it is correct.

mi'e la latro'a mu'o

On Sun, May 10, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Spheniscine <spheniscine@gmail.com> wrote:

> Actually, instead of pretending to be a string of {vau}, perhaps it'd be
> better just for it to auto-close with all famyma'o that a simple {.i} would
> (but without actually starting a new sentence). This way it can even close
> off sentences that do not actually have bridi (and thus no possible {vau});
> for example {coi lo tavla pe la .lojban. vau'u ui}. Will probably be easier
> to code too.
>
> On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 4:04:48 PM UTC+8, Spheniscine wrote:
>>
>> I think it might be useful to have a new cmavo, {vau'u}, which is in its
>> own selma'o. It would act as a "super famyma'o / super vau"; acting as any
>> number of {vau}s needed to close off a sentence.
>>
>> Why? Attitudinals, mostly; it'd allow adding attitudinals as an
>> afterthought, attaching it to the entire sentence rather than the last
>> thing in it. {vau} is sufficient for simple sentences (e.g. {do sidju mi
>> vau ui}), but more complex sentences with subclauses at the end may require
>> several {vau}, which just feels wrong. For example
>>
>> Instead of: {do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu vau vau vau ui}
>> You can have: {do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu vau'u ui}
>>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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.

--001a1147d518816bf50515ba02c8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>That&#39;s actually pretty hard to my understanding. =
When you have an {.i}, basically everything left outstanding has to be over=
 because now a &quot;sentence&quot; construct is over. There is no correspo=
nding construct for this situation. So while it would be easy in principle =
to just backtrack and count, this isn&#39;t actually how the grammar works.=
 Indeed, if this were how the grammar works it would be a lot harder to be =
sure that it is correct.<br><br></div>mi&#39;e la latro&#39;a mu&#39;o<br><=
/div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, May =
10, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Spheniscine <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:sp=
heniscine@gmail.com" target=3D"_blank">spheniscine@gmail.com</a>&gt;</span>=
 wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;bor=
der-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">Actually, instea=
d of pretending to be a string of {vau}, perhaps it&#39;d be better just fo=
r it to auto-close with all famyma&#39;o that a simple {.i} would (but with=
out actually starting a new sentence). This way it can even close off sente=
nces that do not actually have bridi (and thus no possible {vau}); for exam=
ple {coi lo tavla pe la .lojban. vau&#39;u ui}. Will probably be easier to =
code too.<div><div class=3D"h5"><div><br>On Sunday, May 10, 2015 at 4:04:48=
 PM UTC+8, Spheniscine wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar=
gin:0;margin-left:0.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div d=
ir=3D"ltr">I think it might be useful to have a new cmavo, {vau&#39;u}, whi=
ch is in its own selma&#39;o. It would act as a &quot;super famyma&#39;o / =
super vau&quot;; acting as any number of {vau}s needed to close off a sente=
nce.<div><br></div><div>Why? Attitudinals, mostly; it&#39;d allow adding at=
titudinals as an afterthought, attaching it to the entire sentence rather t=
han the last thing in it. {vau} is sufficient for simple sentences (e.g. {d=
o sidju mi vau ui}), but more complex sentences with subclauses at the end =
may require several {vau}, which just feels wrong. For example</div><div><b=
r></div><div>Instead of: {do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu vau vau va=
u ui}=C2=A0</div><div>You can have: {do sidju mi lo nu mi zenba lo ni ricfu=
 vau&#39;u ui}<br></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div></div><div cla=
ss=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5">

<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" target=3D"_b=
lank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"http://groups.google.com/group/lojban" targe=
t=3D"_blank">http://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" targ=
et=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></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 />

--001a1147d518816bf50515ba02c8--