Received: from mail-lb0-f185.google.com ([209.85.217.185]:34304) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZIAtA-0001Ri-Ad for lojban-list-archive@lojban.org; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:26:03 -0700 Received: by lbcjf8 with SMTP id jf8sf99250456lbc.1 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:49 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=20120806; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type:x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results :reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group :list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe; bh=qLLRDDQ8TSajjCKzdcO8iWHuV+ALFmX1FxP4BH8U6PY=; b=j9xs6kWUr7eWqOC9pENt6xhqLh0lxmr3N+RFZZfxMA1lMNm/U2vjsKkpFF0LhkPGZI lwh99Xpsg2YHtI8FVAlWUQq6ZfeiGs/qDzTgGbehde7BcdX0AivtrpNojN3AF7AFY1bC IpxxNQ3Fs7PbA4HGTlgQhvbuGbntlKgZqhV+c/SW/4mtaVHJBYf3pMOta8B7ukZ9ZGGl UVvKzeEykv7xuZxGIzdSH/BEjZr5+t78QhygD2yU0Mu+EFc1oLe36XK/1zFO1LQh7Ye0 9Khncq8hcm5e/yAzbHL/DXSrouqgCHP6xHllVO/2xpsKabNCyS/Wm2zE9dk25xyKrejZ gXHQ== X-Received: by 10.180.39.165 with SMTP id q5mr211573wik.14.1437636349287; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.180.94.10 with SMTP id cy10ls323093wib.25.gmail; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.180.35.162 with SMTP id i2mr13415808wij.6.1437636348432; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com (mail-wi0-x22d.google.com. [2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t6si44274wiz.0.2015.07.23.00.25.48 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d; Received: by mail-wi0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id ud3so204817738wib.0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:48 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.194.172.130 with SMTP id bc2mr14085178wjc.85.1437636348284; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.194.162.130 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 00:25:08 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <1c2a3b64-07b1-4023-a740-362deb17da34@googlegroups.com> <55AD070D.5020903@gmx.de> <55AE1142.5090807@gmx.de> <8bab9435-5f94-4742-b74a-8cceac2c8a60@googlegroups.com> From: Gleki Arxokuna Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 10:25:08 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] xoi and new soi as bridi relative clause To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6342db16bd051b85cb8d X-Original-Sender: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d as permitted sender) smtp.mail=gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=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: -1.7 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.7 X-Spam_score_int: -16 X-Spam_bar: - --089e013c6342db16bd051b85cb8d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2015-07-21 18:12 GMT+03:00 guskant : > > > Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 14:28:18 UTC, la gleki a =C3=A9crit : >> >> >> 2015-07-21 17:18 GMT+03:00 guskant : >> >>> It's not simplicity of grammar but similarity of form of description >>> sumti and inserted bridi. If {sei}-clause could enclose a sentence, the >>> grammar would be 23 bytes smaller. If we add {soi}-clause to "free", th= e >>> structure and the usage will be very similar to {sei}-clause. If we had= the >>> structure of "SOI sentence SEhU" from the beginning of Lojban, I would = have >>> never used "SEI terms selbri SEhU". >>> >> >> Similarly, you can eliminate LE and move it to LOhOI saving even more >> rules. >> > > > Thank you for the advice. It seems apparently a nice idea, but I see more > importance in LE-clause than SEI-clause, so I would rather keep it: A > LE-clause automatically picks up the first argument from predication, whi= le > LOhOI can change the argument to pick up by {ke'a} afterwords. They have > more different aspect compared with the similarity between SEI and new SO= I. > > By the way, I have no intention to force any change to ilmentufa or > camxes, so don't be so much worry. You can continue being illogical and > inconsistent as you like. > So simply put we have: 1. bridi =3D terms? CU_elidible selbri terms? 2. sei-clause =3D terms? CU_elidible selbri 3. sumti-tail =3D selbri Of course, we ignore side constructs like quantifiers and relative clauses. So are you asserting that it's better to align 1. and 2. thus losing backward compatibility with previous grammar of 2.? Are you asserting that it's the best way to minify the grammar? If you answer yes to both questions then I disagree since it's similarly possible to align 2. and 3. and then you wont lost any compatibility. For you I aligned 2. and 3. in altatufa parser: http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa/altatufa-stodi.html Here, we get {sei gau mo}, {sei gau mi CU mo}, {sei mo} and {lo gau mo}, {lo gau mi CU mo}, {lo mo} both sumti tail and sei-clause use the same bridi We can also say that x1 of sumti tail has the default value of {zo'e} while {sei}-clause can have the default value e.g. {mi} so that {sei gleki} =3D {sei mi gleki} x1 then can be overriden explicitly {sei do gleki} and {lo fa do gleki cu sipna} ~=3D {lo gleki noi du do cu sipna} Of course, we will still be "illogical and inconsistent" since {lo do gleki} would mean not what one could expect after learning {sei do gleki} and 1. is not aligned but you yourself crossed out this reasoning by saying "I see more importance in LE-clause than SEI-clause, so I would rather keep it" It's a road to nowhere since in the end one can come and say "There is still the lack of logic here, I assert that usage is insignificant so let's change this rule". > -- > 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. > --=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. --089e013c6342db16bd051b85cb8d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


2015-07-21 18:12 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni.kantu@gmail.com><= /span>:


Le mardi 21 juillet 2015 14:28:18 UTC, = la gleki a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
=
2015-07-21 17:18 GMT+03:00 guskant <gusni...@gmail.com>:
It's not simplicity of grammar but similarity of form= of description sumti and inserted bridi. If {sei}-clause could enclose a s= entence, the grammar would be 23 bytes smaller. If we add {soi}-clause to &= quot;free", the structure and the usage will be very similar to {sei}-= clause. If we had the structure of "SOI sentence SEhU" from the b= eginning of Lojban, I would have never used "SEI terms selbri SEhU&quo= t;.=C2=A0

Similarly, yo= u can eliminate LE and move it to LOhOI saving even more rules.
=


Thank you for the ad= vice. It seems apparently a nice idea, but I see more importance in LE-clau= se than SEI-clause, so I would rather keep it: A LE-clause automatically pi= cks up the first argument from predication, while LOhOI can change the argu= ment to pick up by {ke'a} afterwords. They have more different aspect c= ompared with the similarity between SEI and new SOI.

By the way, I have no intention to force any change to ilmentufa or camx= es, so don't be so much worry. You can continue being illogical and inc= onsistent as you like.=C2=A0

So simpl= y put we have:
1. bridi =3D terms? CU_elidible selbri terms?
2. sei-clause =3D terms? CU_elidible selbri
3. sumti-tail = =3D selbri

Of course, we ignore side constructs li= ke quantifiers and relative clauses.

So are you as= serting that it's better to align 1. and 2. thus losing backward compat= ibility with previous grammar of 2.?
Are you asserting that it= 9;s the best way to minify the grammar?
If you answer yes to both= questions then I disagree since it's similarly possible to align 2. an= d 3. and then you wont lost any compatibility.
For you I aligned = 2. and 3. in altatufa parser:=C2=A0http://mw.lojban.org/extensions/ilmentufa= /altatufa-stodi.html

Here, we get=C2=A0
<= div>{sei gau mo}, {sei gau mi CU mo},=C2=A0{sei mo}
and
{lo gau mo}, {lo gau mi CU mo},=C2=A0{lo mo}
both sumti tail= and sei-clause use the same bridi

We can also say= that x1 of sumti tail has the default value of {zo'e} while {sei}-clau= se can have the default value e.g. {mi} so that
{sei gleki} =3D {= sei mi gleki}
x1 then can be overriden explicitly
{sei = do gleki}
and=C2=A0
{lo fa do gleki cu sipna} ~=3D {lo = gleki noi du do cu sipna}
Of course, we will still be "illog= ical and inconsistent" since {lo do gleki} would mean not what one cou= ld expect after learning {sei do gleki} and 1. is not aligned but you yours= elf crossed out this reasoning by saying "I see more importance in LE-= clause than SEI-clause, so I would rather keep it"

It's a road to nowhere since in the end one can come and say &quo= t;There is still the lack of logic here, I assert that usage is insignifica= nt so let's change this rule".
=C2=A0

--
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+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 &= 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.
--089e013c6342db16bd051b85cb8d--