From fracture@allusion.net Wed Apr 07 16:20:17 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:20:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com ([24.93.47.43]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BBML5-0005Ni-P6 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 07 Apr 2004 16:20:11 -0700 Received: from fracture (cs24349-133.austin.rr.com [24.243.49.133]) by ms-smtp-04.texas.rr.com (8.12.10/8.12.7) with SMTP id i37NK7t1027081 for ; Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:20:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: by fracture (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:35:43 -0500 From: "Jordan DeLong" Date: Wed, 7 Apr 2004 18:35:43 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: CMENE=BRIVLA (was Re: Opinions on "mi viska le sa .i mi cusku zo .djan.") Message-ID: <20040407233543.GA66109@allusion.net> References: <20040407050022.GA58395@allusion.net> <20040407121746.53552.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040407121746.53552.qmail@web41904.mail.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-Virus-Scanned: Symantec AntiVirus Scan Engine X-archive-position: 7492 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 07, 2004 at 05:17:46AM -0700, Jorge Llambmas wrote: > --- Jordan DeLong wrote: > > ro me la djan. ku poi mi sanji cu xabju le merko >=20 > Or you can even say {ro la djan}. A better example would have been: Ah this is a good point. The quantifiers on {la djan.} are {ro la su'o djan.}. You don't even need to say the "ro"---there can always be more than one djan. Of course the listener probably won't assume you're talking about all of them unless you say something a little clearer. > ro da poi djan gi'e slabu mi cu xabju le merko How's this better than ro da poi se cmene zo djan. gi'e slabu mi cu xabju le merko Other than syllable count I see no advantage, and we've already established that CMENE=3DBRIVLA is a net loss on syllable count. > > The extra 3 syllables in that sentence are certainly going to be > > more than paid for by all the elided {cu} in the rest of whatever > > text/conversation is going on. >=20 > But I'm not saying putting CMENE in BRIVLA will save you syllables. > It will just make the grammar simpler. [...] I'd probably agree with you that the grammar is more complicated than it should ideally be. But I think simplifying it for any purpose other than the coolness of having a smaller number of rules in the grammar is misguided. Ease of learning should be a non-issue. --=20 Jordan DeLong fracture@allusion.net --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAdJBPDrrilS51AZ8RAokSAKCRZbpW8E/qvevmyPhyqmMfIyfvrwCgyH+3 syJG9op055RcKCGbJpw4MK8= =j+Pk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --ZPt4rx8FFjLCG7dd--