Envelope-to: lojban-list-archive@lojban.org
Delivery-date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 15:37:48 -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>
	<86wnwg5wuq.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
	<6dc45c4b-9d4c-2b2b-7b90-a3cfe63910cb@mail.jerrington.me>
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 21:18:13 +0000
In-Reply-To: <6dc45c4b-9d4c-2b2b-7b90-a3cfe63910cb@mail.jerrington.me> (Jacob
	Thomas Errington's message of "Fri, 15 Jan 2021 15:14:13 GMT")
Message-ID: <86a6t8k2cq.fsf@cmarib.ramside>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
X-Spam_score: -2.8
X-Spam_score_int: -27
X-Spam_bar: --

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

> I just use camxes. Perhaps the CLL doesn't allow fi'o clauses as
> sentence connectives due to a limitation in the parser (it would
> require too much lookahead, maybe?) Camxes essentially allows
> unlimited lookahead.

AFAIK, the latest official grammar is grammar.300.  All those PEG
grammars are unofficial, as I understand.  The PEG grammars may
introduce new features (such as full "tag"s where "simple-tag"s used to
be), but that introduces the question of WHICH grammar is being used.
Whenever you ask whether something is grammatical, you must specify:
grammatical with respect to which (official or experimental) grammar?

That said, it would be VERY nice if "tag"s replaced all the
"simple-tag"s in the grammar.  It would also be nice if cmavo of NAhE
could be joined by joiks/jeks.  Lojban has several asymetries like this
which could be resolved by adopting a new official grammar.

>    The usual strategy to interpret a {fi'o} clause is to rearrange to
>    make its selbri the top-level selbri. For example, I would interpret
>    {mi fi'o simsa do se bangu lo lojbo} as
>
>     =C2=A0 mi do simsa lo ka lo lojbo cu bangu
>     =C2=A0 + a claim that {mi se bangu lo lojbo}

I still think you're mis-stating this.  I think what you mean to
describe is {mi fi'o simsa BO do se bangu lo lojbo}.  However, modal
connections between sumti are not allowed in grammar.300.  They might be
allowed in a camxes-like grammar.  (I haven't checked.)

Still, even if grammatical, this wouldn't imply any different (or
updated) interpretation of modal tags than appears in CLL.  I would
still interpret {jai fi'o gasnu fe'u broda} as {jai gau broda}.  The
strange constructs appear when you use {fi'o} clauses as tenses, i.e.:

  .i ti fi'o bredi fe'u cutci

As I understand it, this would mean:

  .i ti cutci
  .i bredi lonu go'i

This would be the interpretation of modal tags as explained in the CLL.
What I think you're saying is that {fi'o} tags are just allowed in more
places (in PEG grammars) than they used to be (in YACC), not that there
are necessarily any new interpretations of what a modal tag means.

--=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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/=
lojban/86a6t8k2cq.fsf%40cmarib.ramside.