Received: from mail-ob0-f183.google.com ([209.85.214.183]:34545) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZFP9c-0006OL-9i for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:03:38 -0700 Received: by obbgp5 with SMTP id gp5sf17389620obb.1 for ; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:03:22 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=FBfq4ZEz8X1tWB3mJPNZjCgih/60EsIqrwMnuTTKVjQ=; b=hvoXDJfhw1ypJ911H6y5idHs6xgsqaoTgZMaeAxYl75PYoPZRn9P5qjd5zeYc4vwaj +62voAFACR7CBY0aahXH/eIL/UVtqt2YW777OIqlUEjUkrrvHWjdj1KLOKcJPaiFzO/O Ufazk/zT5gRJb3guGVMYzNHbM5+cmxKpbuzADwFdlE8tzKeXrqqrsudN6dspdng40HQC 0tT/zVGh0w3c2n7jyY6u82UXUzxgYflafy1ApXhA5qFo/Uz6vL3LEZLHjuGWZDhhrD/A T4CPLabHfHkZ8ynIZxRwBTpYXyMAKygrr7bpaQOwRpROLN6UsiIBM67vM/6FizHz/F7o fpbw== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=FBfq4ZEz8X1tWB3mJPNZjCgih/60EsIqrwMnuTTKVjQ=; b=pLFy9Ha2KCJhuFfLtAf6RmQ8K1YGryA0i9Z5Ieo2Q4TPYyfry22iT6Jq9/D0e+9sfQ /bxd2xoBPSrq06YFgl1vfyX+kc0Ymw0c7qeyJ5RpaWAN5QtwedcwEBQH6MYy6ogy+jIm AQGMuvvH7nHQF0PfPd7srcYberbCFp5KC9nlyhdf53YwnNc9tKtVJ3oNSbAOeCNuqcFO ZTEU9Hz9vhQ2qL4Ut82KCGhfg+9pF7qXDjQNZJVRQXWgwz3PPFdvevRlrqSu/e84gk54 J+OSrb4E/4Hw5RgdTdc1HgsNicc+VnbEYDGdC+VyaJzLGBL7GLsTsIqz1ZL0VuoKizES +Scw== X-Received: by 10.50.126.35 with SMTP id mv3mr296724igb.17.1436976202394; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:03:22 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.50.43.194 with SMTP id y2ls561394igl.24.gmail; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:03:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.253.5 with SMTP id zw5mr297062igc.9.1436976201891; Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:03:21 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2015 09:03:20 -0700 (PDT) From: guskant To: lojban@googlegroups.com Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <196303dc-9717-45a5-a521-788aa2a153f8@googlegroups.com> References: <196303dc-9717-45a5-a521-788aa2a153f8@googlegroups.com> Subject: [lojban] Re: {tu'e...tu'u} in NU MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_3761_934547359.1436976200523" X-Original-Sender: gusni.kantu@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: , List-Unsubscribe: , X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- ------=_Part_3761_934547359.1436976200523 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_3762_611374115.1436976200524" ------=_Part_3762_611374115.1436976200524 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Le mercredi 15 juillet 2015 13:51:59 UTC, la durka a =C3=A9crit : > > In general I think it's a bad idea to change {.i} so that it doesn't=20 > always start a new sentence. The major problems are that it deals a heavy= =20 > blow to the whole concept of=20 > Officially, {i} always start a new "statement", while {i JOI} or {i (tag)= =20 BO} start a new sentence. La zantufa does not differs in this point. =20 > elidible terminators, if you can't "just start a new sentence" to get out= =20 > of a deeply nested pit of abstractions; and it means it's no longer=20 > possible to quickly scan a text for {.i} to separate the sentences -- you= =20 > need to parse the entire text to find the sentence boundaries. So I would= =20 > definitely favor a solution for the first problem that doesn't change the= =20 > grammar so drastically. (Not to say I'm against new grammar in general, o= f=20 > course! But I find severe disadvantages with this particular proposal.) > > Allowing a full statement in nu-clause or noi-clause requires KEI or KUhO= =20 in more cases than the official grammar, and it is just like cmevla as=20 selbrisle requires CU in more cases. This change is required mainly from a= =20 logical point of view, and incidentally for grammatical simplicity. A statement in nu-clause has its own universe of discourse independent from= =20 the outer bridi. A full logical reasoning must be possible in that=20 universe, but the official grammar limits the freedom of logical expression= =20 in nu-clause to so-called "subsentence". I just gave the full liberty of=20 logical expression to that universe in nu-clause.=20 If Lojban is called "logji bangu", I think it's structure related to Logic= =20 should be more refined, otherwise "logji" should be removed from its=20 sub-name. As for noi-clause, the universe of discourse is the same as that of outer= =20 bridi. I don't think noi-clause must have full liberty of logical=20 expression, but it is also liberated only for simplicity of grammar. If you don't like this proposal, just don't use la zantufa. It is defined= =20 as "zabna fi la guskant" parser, not "fi do". =20 > The bonus problem is not so hard -- you can use {zo'u} as la .guskant.=20 > said, or indeed plain tu'e/tu'u, or connect the sentences with {.ije} or= =20 > {.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},= =20 > which I previously dismissed, could cover some of my above objections to= =20 > changing the meaning of {.i}. However such a super-terminator has yet to = be=20 > formalized and it seems silly to introduce the change if we need an escap= e=20 > hatch cmavo for the common case! > > --=20 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 e= mail 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_3762_611374115.1436976200524 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


Le mercredi 15 juillet 2015 13:51:59 UTC, la durka= a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
In general I think it's a bad idea to change {.i} so that it d= oesn't always start a new sentence. The major problems are that it deal= s a heavy blow to the whole concept of


Officially, {i} always start a new "statement",= while {i JOI} or {i (tag) BO} start a new sentence. La zantufa does not di= ffers in this point.

=C2=A0
elidible terminators, if you c= an't "just start a new sentence" to get out of a deeply neste= d 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 ent= ire text to find the sentence boundaries. So I would definitely favor a sol= ution for the first problem that doesn't change the grammar so drastica= lly. (Not to say I'm against new grammar in general, of course! But I f= ind severe disadvantages with this particular proposal.)



Allowing a full stat= ement in nu-clause or noi-clause requires KEI or KUhO in more cases than th= e official grammar, and it is just like cmevla as selbrisle requires CU in = more cases. This change is required mainly from a logical point of view, an= d incidentally for grammatical simplicity.

A state= ment in nu-clause has its own universe of discourse independent from the ou= ter bridi. A full logical reasoning must be possible in that universe, but = the official grammar limits the freedom of logical expression in nu-clause = to so-called "subsentence". I just gave the full liberty of logic= al expression to that universe in nu-clause.=C2=A0

If Lojban is called "logji bangu", I think it's structure re= lated to Logic should be more refined, otherwise "logji" should b= e removed from its sub-name.

As for noi-clause, th= e universe of discourse is the same as that of outer bridi. I don't thi= nk noi-clause must have full liberty of logical expression, but it is also = liberated only for simplicity of grammar.

If you d= on't like this proposal, just don't use la zantufa. It is defined a= s "zabna fi la guskant" parser, not "fi do".
=
=C2=A0
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.<= /div>

- mu'o mi'e la durkavore

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to lojban+unsub= scribe@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 http= s://groups.google.com/d/optout.
------=_Part_3762_611374115.1436976200524-- ------=_Part_3761_934547359.1436976200523--