Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of and.rosta@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:4002:c09::231 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:4002:c09::231;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <ac181bfa-bb07-8412-ad27-4a5a9a529f42@gmx.de>
References: <ca63a666-3727-7c2f-8acf-1fbf72d96779@gmx.de> <CACf3dPnrDiAn71GbvJNV4N-b1b408dvoQvchLy=K4iFNsiaetA@mail.gmail.com>
 <ac181bfa-bb07-8412-ad27-4a5a9a529f42@gmx.de>
From: And Rosta <and.rosta@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2016 17:41:48 +0100
Message-ID: <CACf3dPmNSYksDXevCPopkES9QBh6_D94BRO8f5-o2cALd7_=VQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article)
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113e75a4e60b14053d6bcddb
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: -

--001a113e75a4e60b14053d6bcddb
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

> On 26.09.2016 16:43, And Rosta wrote:
>
>> Having given the matter about .0001% of the thought you have, I wonder
>> whether the gi'i terminator is optimal. Firstly it would not always be
>> easy to work out on the fly when it is and isn't elidable, so the
>> prudent strategy would be to leave it in except when certain it is
>> elidable. Secondly, when it isn't elided it adds an extra word and two
>> extra syllables. A better alternative would be to introduce medial
>> conjuncts with _go_ rather than _gi_, and use _gi_ only for introducing
>> final conjuncts: {ga JA A go B go C gi D}. (Or, one step neater, use
>> _gu_ for medial conjuncts and _go_ for the tanru coordination
>> introducer. Or _ge_.)
>>
>
> The only times {gi'i} would not be elidible is if another connective
> follows that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to
> its left. In all other cases {gi'i} is elidible, because each {gi} can only
> devour exactly one sumti, after which the entire connection ends
> automatically.
>
> Your strategy with {go} would involve much more forethought than this,
> because you would have to be absolutely certain that you only want to add
> exactly one more item.
>

Yes, but in designing an ergonomic loglang -- which okay, Lojban isn't and
doesn't aspire to be, but we're kind of imagining if it were trying to be
-- should minimizing speaker forethought be prioritized over, say,
minimizing hearer backtracking, or minimizing verbosity? (I think no.)


>
> Do you have any situations in mind where working out whether {gi'i} is
> elidible would not be easy?
>

I was thinking of {ga JA1 ga JA2 ga JA3 A gi B gi C gi D gi E gi F gi G gi
H gi I gi J gi K}, which I presume would treat A--K as conjuncts of JA3,
and would require two {gi'i}s (terminating JA3 and JA2) to mark the
intended structure (whatever it is). Have I misunderstood? I suppose it's
not hard to work out that gi'i is unelidable, so I will withdraw the first
of my two objections. A reason for preferring the terminator over
alternatives is that terminators are the Lojban way; but a reason for
preferring terminatorless alternatives is that they can potentially involve
incremental parsing without lookahead, which I think is
psycholinguistically much less taxing, and that terminators are
psycholinguistically alien.

--And.


>
> Thank you for your comment.
>
> ~~~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.
>

-- 
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.

--001a113e75a4e60b14053d6bcddb
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quo=
te">On 26 September 2016 at 16:04, selpahi <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D=
"mailto:seladwa@gmx.de" target=3D"_blank">seladwa@gmx.de</a>&gt;</span> wro=
te:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-=
left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=3D"">On 26.09.2016 16:43,=
 And Rosta wrote:<br>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Having given the matter about .0001% of the thought you have, I wonder<br>
whether the gi&#39;i terminator is optimal. Firstly it would not always be<=
br>
easy to work out on the fly when it is and isn&#39;t elidable, so the<br>
prudent strategy would be to leave it in except when certain it is<br>
elidable. Secondly, when it isn&#39;t elided it adds an extra word and two<=
br>
extra syllables. A better alternative would be to introduce medial<br>
conjuncts with _go_ rather than _gi_, and use _gi_ only for introducing<br>
final conjuncts: {ga JA A go B go C gi D}. (Or, one step neater, use<br>
_gu_ for medial conjuncts and _go_ for the tanru coordination<br>
introducer. Or _ge_.)<br>
</blockquote>
<br></span>
The only times {gi&#39;i} would not be elidible is if another connective fo=
llows that is supposed to apply to the entire forethought connection to its=
 left. In all other cases {gi&#39;i} is elidible, because each {gi} can onl=
y devour exactly one sumti, after which the entire connection ends automati=
cally.<br>
<br>
Your strategy with {go} would involve much more forethought than this, beca=
use you would have to be absolutely certain that you only want to add exact=
ly one more item.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, but in designing=
 an ergonomic loglang -- which okay, Lojban isn&#39;t and doesn&#39;t aspir=
e to be, but we&#39;re kind of imagining if it were trying to be -- should =
minimizing speaker forethought be prioritized over, say, minimizing hearer =
backtracking, or minimizing verbosity? (I think no.)</div><div>=C2=A0</div>=
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Do you have any situations in mind where working out whether {gi&#39;i} is =
elidible would not be easy?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I was think=
ing of {ga JA1 ga JA2 ga JA3 A gi B gi C gi D gi E gi F gi G gi H gi I gi J=
 gi K}, which I presume would treat A--K as conjuncts of JA3, and would req=
uire two {gi&#39;i}s (terminating JA3 and JA2) to mark the intended structu=
re (whatever it is). Have I misunderstood? I suppose it&#39;s not hard to w=
ork out that gi&#39;i is unelidable, so I will withdraw the first of my two=
 objections. A reason for preferring the terminator over alternatives is th=
at terminators are the Lojban way; but a reason for preferring terminatorle=
ss alternatives is that they can potentially involve incremental parsing wi=
thout lookahead, which I think is psycholinguistically much less taxing, an=
d that terminators are psycholinguistically alien.</div><div><br></div><div=
>--And.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>=C2=A0</div><blockquote cla=
ss=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;pa=
dding-left:1ex">
<br>
Thank you for your comment.<br>
<br>
~~~mi&#39;e la solpa&#39;i<div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><br>
<br>
-- <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%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com" target=3D"=
_blank">lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroup<wbr>s.com</a>.<br>
To post to this group, send email to <a href=3D"mailto:lojban@googlegroups.=
com" target=3D"_blank">lojban@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
Visit this group at <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/group/lojban" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/grou<wbr>p/lojb=
an</a>.<br>
For more options, visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.com/d/optout" rel=
=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/op<wbr>tout</=
a>.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></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"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 />

--001a113e75a4e60b14053d6bcddb--