Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of ciuak.prog@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c07::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c07::233;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <b0dc193b-94d7-4768-98ba-d0cc05e5dd6d@googlegroups.com>
References: <b0dc193b-94d7-4768-98ba-d0cc05e5dd6d@googlegroups.com>
From: uakci <ciuak.prog@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2016 16:37:36 +0200
Message-ID: <CACtk4+BOOqUic2CWA43Rm89nkxXe0ba9Zo5SgLXyjO-rqdG=sQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] elidable terminators and ambiguity
To: mriste <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114002f8a723c4053afa744e
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.8
X-Spam_score_int: -17
X-Spam_bar: -

--001a114002f8a723c4053afa744e
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Aug 26, 2016 1:47 PM, <vpbroman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> coi ro do
>
> I am trying to understand the rules for eliding terminators.
> The CLL comments on several special cases for when terminators may or may
not be elided,
> but the only general principle I can find is CLL 21.2 EBNF Grammar of
Lojban, point 10:
>
> // encloses an elidable terminator, which may be omitted (without change
of meaning) if no grammatical ambiguity results.
>
> Still, grammatical ambiguity doesn't seem to me to be the deciding factor=
.

I agree =E2=80=94 that note is misleading. Terminators can be elided only w=
hen the
meaning doesn't change.

> Consider these two examples.
>
> i mi noi le mlatu ku sisku keha vau kuho cu sipna vau
> I, whom the cat is seeking, am sleeping.

This example with only the needed stuff would be =C2=ABmi noi le mlatu cu s=
isku
tu'a ke'a cu sipna=C2=BB.

> The "ku" should be elidable, because when it is omitted, there is only
one possible place to insert it -- no grammatical ambiguity.

No, once the =C2=ABku=C2=BB is removed, we get =C2=ABmlatu sisku=C2=BB, whi=
ch is a tanru.

> But, a parser says it cannot be elided, and it does look somehow strange
with the "ku" omitted.

In this case, you can also use =C2=ABcu=C2=BB. But you can't drop both.

>
> i le mlatu poi xekri vau kuho cu sipna vau
> The black cat sleeps.

This example would be =C2=ABle mlatu poi xekri cu sipna=C2=BB.

>
> The "le mlatu" needs a "ku" that can go in one of two places, before or
after the relative clause.

Relative clauses follow the LE-clause, so =C2=ABku=C2=BB is assumed automag=
ically.

> These choices are semantically equivalent, but grammatically
(syntactically) different.
> You can look at the parse trees and see they are different.
> Still, the parser says that eliding this "ku" is OK.
>
> Why? Why kind of ambiguity is CLL talking about here?
>
> mihe la bremenli nohu Vincent Broman

~ uakci

> --
> 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 https://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 https://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--001a114002f8a723c4053afa744e
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<p dir=3D"ltr"></p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">On Aug 26, 2016 1:47 PM, &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:vpbroman@gmai=
l.com">vpbroman@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; coi ro do<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; I am trying to understand the rules for eliding terminators.<br>
&gt; The CLL comments on several special cases for when terminators may or =
may not be elided,<br>
&gt; but the only general principle I can find is CLL 21.2 EBNF Grammar of =
Lojban, point 10:<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; // encloses an elidable terminator, which may be omitted (without chan=
ge of meaning) if no grammatical ambiguity results.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Still, grammatical ambiguity doesn&#39;t seem to me to be the deciding=
 factor.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">I agree =E2=80=94 that note is misleading. Terminators can b=
e elided only when the meaning doesn&#39;t change.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; Consider these two examples.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; i mi noi le mlatu ku sisku keha vau kuho cu sipna vau<br>
&gt; I, whom the cat is seeking, am sleeping.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">This example with only the needed stuff would be =C2=ABmi no=
i le mlatu cu sisku tu&#39;a ke&#39;a cu sipna=C2=BB.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; The &quot;ku&quot; should be elidable, because when it =
is omitted, there is only one possible place to insert it -- no grammatical=
 ambiguity.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">No, once the =C2=ABku=C2=BB is removed, we get =C2=ABmlatu s=
isku=C2=BB, which is a tanru.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; But, a parser says it cannot be elided, and it does loo=
k somehow strange with the &quot;ku&quot; omitted.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">In this case, you can also use =C2=ABcu=C2=BB. But you can&#=
39;t drop both.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>
&gt; i le mlatu poi xekri vau kuho cu sipna vau<br>
&gt; The black cat sleeps.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">This example would be =C2=ABle mlatu poi xekri cu sipna=C2=
=BB.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt;<br>
&gt; The &quot;le mlatu&quot; needs a &quot;ku&quot; that can go in one of =
two places, before or after the relative clause.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">Relative clauses follow the LE-clause, so =C2=ABku=C2=BB is =
assumed automagically.</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; These choices are semantically equivalent, but grammati=
cally (syntactically) different.<br>
&gt; You can look at the parse trees and see they are different.<br>
&gt; Still, the parser says that eliding this &quot;ku&quot; is OK.<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Why? Why kind of ambiguity is CLL talking about here?<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; mihe la bremenli nohu Vincent Broman</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">~ uakci</p>
<p dir=3D"ltr">&gt; -- <br>
&gt; You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gro=
ups &quot;lojban&quot; group.<br>
&gt; To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send=
 an email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com">lojba=
n+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
&gt; To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegr=
oups.com">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
&gt; Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban"=
>https://groups.google.com/group/lojban</a>.<br>
&gt; For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout"=
>https://groups.google.com/d/optout</a>.<br></p>

<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"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban">http=
s://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 />

--001a114002f8a723c4053afa744e--