Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2015 21:26:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Spheniscine (la zipcpi)" <spheniscine@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <a9475bfd-ac16-40ce-bb60-7b2a057a681d@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] {tu'e...tu'u} in NU
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_291_1259839290.1436934410359"
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: -2.0
X-Spam_score_int: -19
X-Spam_bar: --

------=_Part_291_1259839290.1436934410359
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_292_960968052.1436934410359"

------=_Part_292_960968052.1436934410359
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

One problem that crops up now and then concerns how to include more than 
one bridi within a NU clause. An example is my translation of Deuteronomy 
8:12~14, which I have rendered:

.i tezu'ebo rivbi va'o lo nu do mo'u citka jebo cu tolxagji je cu zbasu lo 
> zabna zdani je cu xabju ri
> ju'ei loi cagda'u be do ferti se panzi ju'ei loi rijno joi loi solji vu'o 
> po do zei'a sormei ju'ei loi ro se ponse be do zei'asai sormei kei
> lo nu lo menli be do co'a se'ijgi ju'ei do tolmo'i tu'a la .iauex. ku noi 
> cevni do je noi vimcu do la .misr. ku no'u le tutra pe lo ka bapse'u


(note, uses simplified connectives, the experimental tag {zei'a} which is 
basically {fi'o te zenba}: {zei'a sormei} means "increasingly many" / "to 
increase in number", and {ju'ei}, which shall be discussed. Yes, I'm pretty 
terrible with abusing experimental constructs.)

There are several solutions:
official-Lojban solution #1: use {ju'e ... gi ...}. Requires forethought, 
and only takes two bridi. Chaining them to allow more is impractical.

official-Lojban solution #2: close each NU clause then join it to a new 
abstractor sumti. e.g. {lo nu broda kei jo'u lo nu brode}. Pretty wordy.

experimental-grammar solution #1: {ju'ei}; essentially acts like a 
tight-scope {.i} that doesn't close sub-clauses. {lo nu broda ju'ei brode}. 
Has the advantage of not requiring forethought, but has the disadvantage of 
not automatically closing any bridi tails; if one of your abstraction-bridi 
happens to contain a lot of nested NU or POI, they must be closed manually.

experimental-grammar solution #2: Allow {tu'e...tu'u} to act as a single 
bridi in NU clauses: {lo nu tu'e broda .i brode tu'u}. Does require 
forethought, but gives a new "level zero" for {.i} to automatically reset 
to until closed by {tu'u}.

And bonus official-Lojban solution #3, with an experimental shorthand that 
doesn't require new grammar: {tu'a la'e lu broda .i brode li'u}, with 
{tu'ai} (selma'o LU) being shorthand for {tu'a la'e lu}. Useful, but may be 
semantically vague, given lack of LO NU qualification, and {tu'a} possibly 
implying missing information.

Bonus problem: A related problem is how to make several sentences share a 
sumtcita-term. e.g: *{ca lo nu mi stuvi'e le sralygu'e kei tu'e lo zabna cu 
fasnu .i lo mabla cu fasnu tu'u}. {ju'e...gi} also works here, but retains 
the chaining problem, while I don't know if any of the other listed 
solutions work.

-- 
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.

------=_Part_292_960968052.1436934410359
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">One problem that crops up now and then concerns how to inc=
lude more than one bridi within a NU clause. An example is my translation o=
f Deuteronomy 8:12~14, which I have rendered:<div><br></div><div><blockquot=
e class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-wid=
th: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; p=
adding-left: 1ex;">.i tezu&#39;ebo rivbi va&#39;o lo nu do mo&#39;u citka j=
ebo cu tolxagji je cu zbasu lo zabna zdani je cu xabju ri<br>ju&#39;ei loi =
cagda&#39;u be do ferti se panzi ju&#39;ei loi rijno joi loi solji vu&#39;o=
 po do zei&#39;a sormei ju&#39;ei loi ro se ponse be do zei&#39;asai sormei=
 kei<br>lo nu lo menli be do co&#39;a se&#39;ijgi ju&#39;ei do tolmo&#39;i =
tu&#39;a la .iauex. ku noi cevni do je noi vimcu do la .misr. ku no&#39;u l=
e tutra pe lo ka bapse&#39;u</blockquote><div><br></div><div>(note, uses si=
mplified connectives, the experimental tag {zei&#39;a} which is basically {=
fi&#39;o te zenba}: {zei&#39;a sormei} means &quot;increasingly many&quot; =
/ &quot;to increase in number&quot;, and {ju&#39;ei}, which shall be discus=
sed. Yes, I&#39;m pretty terrible with abusing experimental constructs.)</d=
iv></div><div><br></div><div>There are several solutions:</div><div>officia=
l-Lojban solution #1: use {ju&#39;e ... gi ...}. Requires forethought, and =
only takes two bridi. Chaining them to allow more is impractical.</div><div=
><br></div><div>official-Lojban solution #2: close each NU clause then join=
 it to a new abstractor sumti. e.g. {lo nu broda kei jo&#39;u lo nu brode}.=
 Pretty wordy.</div><div><br></div><div>experimental-grammar solution #1: {=
ju&#39;ei}; essentially acts like a tight-scope {.i} that doesn&#39;t close=
 sub-clauses. {lo nu broda ju&#39;ei brode}. Has the advantage of not requi=
ring forethought, but has the disadvantage of not automatically closing any=
 bridi tails; if one of your abstraction-bridi happens to contain a lot of =
nested NU or POI, they must be closed manually.</div><div><br></div><div>ex=
perimental-grammar solution #2: Allow {tu&#39;e...tu&#39;u} to act as a sin=
gle bridi in NU clauses: {lo nu tu&#39;e broda .i brode tu&#39;u}. Does req=
uire forethought, but gives a new &quot;level zero&quot; for {.i} to automa=
tically reset to until closed by {tu&#39;u}.</div><div><br></div><div>And b=
onus official-Lojban solution #3, with an experimental shorthand that doesn=
&#39;t require new grammar: {tu&#39;a la&#39;e lu broda .i brode li&#39;u},=
 with {tu&#39;ai} (selma&#39;o LU) being shorthand for {tu&#39;a la&#39;e l=
u}. Useful, but may be semantically vague, given lack of LO NU qualificatio=
n, and {tu&#39;a} possibly implying missing information.</div><div><br></di=
v><div>Bonus problem: A related problem is how to make several sentences sh=
are a sumtcita-term. e.g: *{ca lo nu mi stuvi&#39;e le sralygu&#39;e kei tu=
&#39;e lo zabna cu fasnu .i lo mabla cu fasnu tu&#39;u}. {ju&#39;e...gi} al=
so works here, but retains the chaining problem, while I don&#39;t know if =
any of the other listed solutions work.</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 />

------=_Part_292_960968052.1436934410359--
------=_Part_291_1259839290.1436934410359--