Envelope-to: lojban-list-archive@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 17:21:26 -0800
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org designates 2607:f2f8:a1d8::b19:0:f0b as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f2f8:a1d8::b19:0:f0b;
From: scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Subject: [lojban] Re: Reasoning by analogy
References: <86o8iru85f.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<dd954228-c706-98f2-5709-eaed3cb94703@mail.jerrington.me>
	<86blep9yni.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<8ff75cde-1243-5188-489e-e11276a75a07@mail.jerrington.me>
	<86zh1s9mw5.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<103d554a-d7f5-918e-bb82-6e025e41131b@mail.jerrington.me>
	<86im89g450.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<562e4432-9329-49e3-42d8-cce39c4f27fe@mail.jerrington.me>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 21:51:41 +0000
In-Reply-To: <562e4432-9329-49e3-42d8-cce39c4f27fe@mail.jerrington.me> (Jacob
	Thomas Errington's message of "Thu, 07 Jan 2021 14:29:18 GMT")
Message-ID: <86wnwg5wuq.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -1.2
X-Spam_score_int: -11
X-Spam_bar: -

Jacob Thomas Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me> writes:

> What I wrote, {.i fi'o broda bo} is grammatical. Try it in a parser!
>
> http://camxes.lojban.org/?text=.i%20fi%27o%20broda%20bo

I'm looking at the EBNF grammar in the CLL, but not seeing it.  Are you
using the rule statement-2_13?  Odd... the on-line version of the CLL
contains the EBNF, but not the YACC grammar.  According to the YACC:

lexer_K_955             :  lexer_K_711  I_root_956  BO_508
                        |  lexer_K_711  I_root_956  simple_tag_971  BO_508
                        ;

The "simple_tag_971" doesn't permit {fi'o} clauses.  Are you using
grammar.300?

> It turns out that in the decades since the CLL was published that the
> language has continued to evolve and that interpretations have been
> refined. The CLL interpretation for fi'o falls a bit flat because it
> doesn't explain the connection between this new place and the old
> selbri, whereas the 'new' interpretation is for the most part
> compatible with the old one (gives essentially the same
> interpretations) while being more precise.

The CLL's description of the meaning of {fi'o} clauses isn't expressed
particularly clearly, but the meaning expressed is pretty clear.  The
meaning of a {fi'o} clause is determined the same way as for BAI cmavo:
it specifies something which fills the x1 place of the BAI or FIhO
clause.  Tenses are interpereted slightly differently (exchanging the x1
and x2 places) for historical reasons.  What is this "new", modern,
interpretation of {fi'o}, as you understand it?

> No, I'm using {co} correctly. It's just a tricky beast.
>
> {.i ko'a ... broda co brode fo'a ...} has the sumti {ko'a ...} filling
> places of {broda} starting at x1, and has the sumti {fo'a ...} filling
> the places of {brode} starting at x2. The upshot is that one can use
> {co} to elide abstractors using tanru.
>
> .i mi djica co cliva ti
>
> I forget the exact CLL reference, but this is indeed in the CLL.

You're right.  It's in CLL section 5.8.  I'd totally forgotten about
that.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/86wnwg5wuq.fsf%40cmarib.ramside.