Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2016 04:33:46 -0700 (PDT)
From: gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com
To: lojban <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Cc: jake@mail.jerrington.me
Message-Id: <85bf3bca-46db-4cca-bd4e-a1cfcb7c5790@googlegroups.com>
In-Reply-To: <44360471-72E2-4CEC-AA45-95FEB1FA3ACF@mail.jerrington.me>
References: <ca63a666-3727-7c2f-8acf-1fbf72d96779@gmx.de> <453FEC09-0446-4E5E-A82D-FCD596B71A5F@mail.jerrington.me> <7da3b7fb-f99e-ad65-12f6-550176db0fa6@gmx.de>
 <44360471-72E2-4CEC-AA45-95FEB1FA3ACF@mail.jerrington.me>
Subject: Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_896_1182728954.1474976026552"
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: -

------=_Part_896_1182728954.1474976026552
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_897_1730114359.1474976026552"

------=_Part_897_1730114359.1474976026552
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Em segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016 18:58:35 UTC+3, Jacob Errington 
escreveu:
>
>
> > On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:31 AM, selpahi <sel...@gmx.de <javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> > 
> > 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. 
>
> {ko'a cu} is not a bridi-head, since a bridi-head can appear only before a 
> bridi-tail. (I gave an informal characterization of bridi-heads and 
> bridi-tails in my last message. Notice that my characterization rules out 
> {ko'a cu} as a bridi-head, as it does not precede a bridi-tail.) 
>
> As for people wanting to say such things as {sei broda cu brode} as the 
> basis of a psychological argument in favour of {cu} belonging to the tail, 
> I argue that people think this way because the most common way of 
> explaining {cu} to people is a lie: "{cu} is a cmavo that can be placed 
> before the main selbri in order to force the insertion of all elidible 
> terminators necessary to make the appearance of the main selbri 
> grammatical". Sure, according to this explanation, {cu} belongs to the 
> tail, but as I said, this explanation is a lie. According to this 
> explanation, {cu broda} would be legal, since it forces the inclusion of 
> all (zero) terminators necessary to make the appearance of the main selbri 
> {broda} grammatical. However, {cu broda} is not allowed in the official 
> grammar. 
>
> Therefore, as I understand it, your psychological argument boils down to 
> this: we should change the operation of {cu} because of a convenient lie 
> we've told to too many people. (I'm not at all claiming that I'm not guilty 
> of perpetuating this lie too; I've explained {cu} this way countless 
> times.) 
>
> As for people who want things like {sei broda cu brode} to be legal, 
> according to my (rather straightforward) characterization of bridi as a 
> bridi-tail plus an optional head, {sei broda cu brode} is ruled out, as 
> {sei broda} is not a term. Hence, there is no bridi-head. ("If a bridi-tail 
> is present, it may be preceded with a bridi-head, which begins after 
> {zo'u}, ends with {cu}, and encloses *one or more* terms." Added emphasis.) 
>
> Perhaps we can just teach people this characterization instead of 
> fundamentally changing the operation of {cu}. In fact, this is already how 
> I explain {cu} to people now. Rather than change the grammar so that we can 
> have been right all along, let's just admit that our explanation was wrong 
> and move on. 
>
> > 
> > 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. 
> > 
>
> There's no argument here. I agree with you entirely that {cu} and {vau} do 
> not form a pair. This contradicts nothing of what I said though; I never 
> said that they formed a pair. I merely said that there was a kind of 
> elegant symmetry between bridi-heads and bridi-tails, since each has a 
> terminator. 
>
> >> 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. 
> > 
>
> And I like to compare {cu} to {vau}! {vau} terminates a bridi-tail whereas 
> {cu} terminates a bridi-head. Both terminate important parts of the bridi. 
>
> Of course, {cu} cannot appear without {vau}, since a bridi-head cannot be 
> present without an accompanying tail. But then again, this is no different 
> than how CU differs from FA in your proposal, since {fa mi} is not a bridi 
> whereas {cu broda} is. 
>
> .i mi'e la tsani mu'o 
>

I have to agree with la tsani's arguments. Besides, feedback from users 
showed to me that variations of mad proposals lead to no gain. 

-- 
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.

------=_Part_897_1730114359.1474976026552
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">Em segunda-feira, 26 de setembro de 2016 18:58:35 UTC+3, J=
acob Errington  escreveu:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
 0;margin-left: 0.8ex;border-left: 1px #ccc solid;padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>&gt; On Sep 26, 2016, at 11:31 AM, selpahi &lt;<a href=3D"javascript:" =
target=3D"_blank" gdf-obfuscated-mailto=3D"3dBzajxTAwAJ" rel=3D"nofollow" o=
nmousedown=3D"this.href=3D&#39;javascript:&#39;;return true;" onclick=3D"th=
is.href=3D&#39;javascript:&#39;;return true;">sel...@gmx.de</a>&gt; wrote:
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; On 26.09.2016 17:22, Jacob Errington wrote:
<br>&gt;&gt; In the official grammar, it can be observed that {cu} is a ter=
minator
<br>&gt;&gt; by noticing that it is elided only when one or more terms prec=
ede the
<br>&gt;&gt; bridi-tail: contrast {ko&#39;a [cu] broda [vau]} with {broda [=
vau]}. The
<br>&gt;&gt; proposed connective reform does more than reform connectives. =
It
<br>&gt;&gt; alters the operation of {cu}, so that rather act as a bridi-he=
ad
<br>&gt;&gt; elidible terminator, it acts as a bridi-tail elidible *initiat=
or*.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; {cu} is not really a terminator. The fact that you can&#39;t have =
{cu} without a bridi-tail is evidence of that. If {cu} were really a bridi-=
head terminator, {ko&#39;a cu} should be a valid fragment. Note also that p=
eople think that things like {sei broda cu brode} should be legal. This sho=
ws that psychologically {cu} belongs to the tail, rather than the head.
<br>
<br>{ko&#39;a cu} is not a bridi-head, since a bridi-head can appear only b=
efore a bridi-tail. (I gave an informal characterization of bridi-heads and=
 bridi-tails in my last message. Notice that my characterization rules out =
{ko&#39;a cu} as a bridi-head, as it does not precede a bridi-tail.)
<br>
<br>As for people wanting to say such things as {sei broda cu brode} as the=
 basis of a psychological argument in favour of {cu} belonging to the tail,=
 I argue that people think this way because the most common way of explaini=
ng {cu} to people is a lie: &quot;{cu} is a cmavo that can be placed before=
 the main selbri in order to force the insertion of all elidible terminator=
s necessary to make the appearance of the main selbri grammatical&quot;. Su=
re, according to this explanation, {cu} belongs to the tail, but as I said,=
 this explanation is a lie. According to this explanation, {cu broda} would=
 be legal, since it forces the inclusion of all (zero) terminators necessar=
y to make the appearance of the main selbri {broda} grammatical. However, {=
cu broda} is not allowed in the official grammar.
<br>
<br>Therefore, as I understand it, your psychological argument boils down t=
o this: we should change the operation of {cu} because of a convenient lie =
we&#39;ve told to too many people. (I&#39;m not at all claiming that I&#39;=
m not guilty of perpetuating this lie too; I&#39;ve explained {cu} this way=
 countless times.)
<br>
<br>As for people who want things like {sei broda cu brode} to be legal, ac=
cording to my (rather straightforward) characterization of bridi as a bridi=
-tail plus an optional head, {sei broda cu brode} is ruled out, as {sei bro=
da} is not a term. Hence, there is no bridi-head. (&quot;If a bridi-tail is=
 present, it may be preceded with a bridi-head, which begins after {zo&#39;=
u}, ends with {cu}, and encloses *one or more* terms.&quot; Added emphasis.=
)
<br>
<br>Perhaps we can just teach people this characterization instead of funda=
mentally changing the operation of {cu}. In fact, this is already how I exp=
lain {cu} to people now. Rather than change the grammar so that we can have=
 been right all along, let&#39;s just admit that our explanation was wrong =
and move on.
<br>
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; Also, {cu} and {vau} don&#39;t really form a pair. {vau} appears e=
ven 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 pai=
r, they should always appear equally often.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>
<br>There&#39;s no argument here. I agree with you entirely that {cu} and {=
vau} do not form a pair. This contradicts nothing of what I said though; I =
never said that they formed a pair. I merely said that there was a kind of =
elegant symmetry between bridi-heads and bridi-tails, since each has a term=
inator.
<br>
<br>&gt;&gt; Reforming the overly complex connective system is an excellent=
 goal,
<br>&gt;&gt; but I am against the means to that end employed in this propos=
al,
<br>&gt;&gt; namely the alteration of {cu} to become an elidible initiator =
(which
<br>&gt;&gt; would also make it the first of its kind, I think).
<br>&gt;=20
<br>&gt; I like to compare {cu} to FA. A FA is an optional marker for a par=
ticular sumti, while {cu} is an optional marker for the selbri. Both FA and=
 CU mark particular slots in the bridi.
<br>&gt;=20
<br>
<br>And I like to compare {cu} to {vau}! {vau} terminates a bridi-tail wher=
eas {cu} terminates a bridi-head. Both terminate important parts of the bri=
di.
<br>
<br>Of course, {cu} cannot appear without {vau}, since a bridi-head cannot =
be present without an accompanying tail. But then again, this is no differe=
nt than how CU differs from FA in your proposal, since {fa mi} is not a bri=
di whereas {cu broda} is.
<br>
<br>.i mi&#39;e la tsani mu&#39;o
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I have to agree with la tsani&#39;s ar=
guments. Besides, feedback from users showed to me that variations of mad p=
roposals lead to no gain.=C2=A0</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 />

------=_Part_897_1730114359.1474976026552--

------=_Part_896_1182728954.1474976026552--