Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 06:51:59 -0700 (PDT)
From: la durka <durka42@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Message-Id: <196303dc-9717-45a5-a521-788aa2a153f8@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <d73e2a72-cb9e-495d-9dc5-3e22878a41c2@googlegroups.com>
References: <a9475bfd-ac16-40ce-bb60-7b2a057a681d@googlegroups.com>
 <d73e2a72-cb9e-495d-9dc5-3e22878a41c2@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [lojban] Re: {tu'e...tu'u} in NU
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_6377_1262611615.1436968319548"
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: -3.1
X-Spam_score_int: -30
X-Spam_bar: ---

------=_Part_6377_1262611615.1436968319548
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_6378_730750811.1436968319548"

------=_Part_6378_730750811.1436968319548
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

In general I think it's a bad idea to change {.i} so that it doesn't always 
start a new sentence. The major problems are that it deals a heavy blow to 
the whole concept of elidible terminators, if you can't "just start a new 
sentence" to get out of a deeply nested pit of abstractions; and it means 
it's no longer possible to quickly scan a text for {.i} to separate the 
sentences -- you need to parse the entire text to find the sentence 
boundaries. So I would definitely favor a solution for the first problem 
that doesn't change the grammar so drastically. (Not to say I'm against new 
grammar in general, of course! But I find severe disadvantages with this 
particular proposal.)

The bonus problem is not so hard -- you can use {zo'u} as la .guskant. 
said, or indeed plain tu'e/tu'u, or connect the sentences with {.ije} or 
{.ibo} to suggest close binding.

- mu'o mi'e la durkavore

P.S. It occurs to me that la zipcpi's "super-terminator" {.i'au}/{.iau}, 
which I previously dismissed, could cover some of my above objections to 
changing the meaning of {.i}. However such a super-terminator has yet to be 
formalized and it seems silly to introduce the change if we need an escape 
hatch cmavo for the common case!

-- 
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_6378_730750811.1436968319548
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">In general I think it&#39;s a bad idea to change {.i} so t=
hat it doesn&#39;t always start a new sentence. The major problems are that=
 it deals a heavy blow to the whole concept of elidible terminators, if you=
 can&#39;t &quot;just start a new sentence&quot; to get out of a deeply nes=
ted pit of abstractions; and it means it&#39;s no longer possible to quickl=
y scan a text for {.i} to separate the sentences -- you need to parse the e=
ntire text to find the sentence boundaries. So I would definitely favor a s=
olution for the first problem that doesn&#39;t change the grammar so drasti=
cally. (Not to say I&#39;m against new grammar in general, of course! But I=
 find severe disadvantages with this particular proposal.)<div><br></div><d=
iv>The bonus problem is not so hard -- you can use {zo&#39;u} as la .guskan=
t. said, or indeed plain tu&#39;e/tu&#39;u, or connect the sentences with {=
.ije} or {.ibo} to suggest close binding.</div><div><br></div><div>- mu&#39=
;o mi&#39;e la durkavore</div><div><br></div><div>P.S. It occurs to me that=
 la zipcpi&#39;s &quot;super-terminator&quot; {.i&#39;au}/{.iau}, which I p=
reviously dismissed, could cover some of my above objections to changing th=
e meaning of {.i}. However such a super-terminator has yet to be formalized=
 and it seems silly to introduce the change if we need an escape hatch cmav=
o for the common case!</div><div><br></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_6378_730750811.1436968319548--
------=_Part_6377_1262611615.1436968319548--