Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of seladwa@gmx.de designates 212.227.17.22 as permitted sender) client-ip=212.227.17.22;
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
References: <ca63a666-3727-7c2f-8acf-1fbf72d96779@gmx.de>
 <453FEC09-0446-4E5E-A82D-FCD596B71A5F@mail.jerrington.me>
From: selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de>
Message-ID: <7da3b7fb-f99e-ad65-12f6-550176db0fa6@gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:31:49 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <453FEC09-0446-4E5E-A82D-FCD596B71A5F@mail.jerrington.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.7
X-Spam_score_int: -16
X-Spam_bar: -

On 26.09.2016 17:22, Jacob Errington wrote:
> In the official grammar, it can be observed that {cu} is a terminator
> by noticing that it is elided only when one or more terms precede the
> bridi-tail: contrast {ko'a [cu] broda [vau]} with {broda [vau]}. The
> proposed connective reform does more than reform connectives. It
> alters the operation of {cu}, so that rather act as a bridi-head
> elidible terminator, it acts as a bridi-tail elidible *initiator*.

{cu} is not really a terminator. The fact that you can't have {cu} 
without a bridi-tail is evidence of that. If {cu} were really a 
bridi-head terminator, {ko'a cu} should be a valid fragment. Note also 
that people think that things like {sei broda cu brode} should be legal. 
This shows that psychologically {cu} belongs to the tail, rather than 
the head.

Also, {cu} and {vau} don't really form a pair. {vau} appears even in 
phrases that contain zero {cu}, and the number of {vau} in sentences 
containing bridi-tails exceeds the number of {cu}. If they were a real 
pair, they should always appear equally often.

> Reforming the overly complex connective system is an excellent goal,
> but I am against the means to that end employed in this proposal,
> namely the alteration of {cu} to become an elidible initiator (which
> would also make it the first of its kind, I think).

I like to compare {cu} to FA. A FA is an optional marker for a 
particular sumti, while {cu} is an optional marker for the selbri. Both 
FA and CU mark particular slots in the bridi.

~~~mi'e la solpa'i

-- 
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.