From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Tue Aug 09 06:29:23 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:29:23 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E2UAL-0002ZL-E9 for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:29:13 -0700 Received: from wproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.184.206]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1E2UAA-0002Yx-PB for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:29:13 -0700 Received: by wproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id 71so1019470wra for ; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=F3+2bEf8d7jj83tn2IP6JW+eqbPNTQ/U1gOAU9esI6kCcW0RLUz/VaM1WkvnDPGD7g3ze46qokJYmwjf9LIVAQpk8Wd9aBXwq0LWNLXisJQqo3tda/d2sDm4er6G/bF+NIg7Hk4mbAc/ajwFXXRvClvnL0B8oY9b3mJGdDjPKmk= Received: by 10.54.7.21 with SMTP id 21mr5478556wrg; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.54.68.12 with HTTP; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 06:28:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <925d17560508090628527c7bb4@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 10:28:58 -0300 From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: ji'i In-Reply-To: <737b61f305080819454d414565@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <737b61f30508081808767b7b5b@mail.gmail.com> <42F81081.2030508@phma.hn.org> <737b61f305080819454d414565@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 10324 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jjllambias@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list On 8/8/05, Chris Capel wrote: > Ahh. In CLL example 14.16.1 (if it can be applied to quantity as well > as location intervals), it would seem that the intended sense of {pa > ji'i re roi} can be captured either by {pa bi'i re roi}, or, > /slightly/ more explicitly, {ji'i pa bi'i re roi}. I see two problems with this: 1) It is ungrammatical. 2) It would have a different meaning. (1) may be fixable if the reason it is ungrammatical has to do with the old LALR(1) restriction on the grammar. This would require a grammar change. (2) is more problematic. As I understand it, and also according to the examples given here: , {bi'i} gives an interval, not a value within an interval. (Admittedly the CLL example you cite seems to take the value within an interval position. Hopefully the BPFK will clear that up.) Even if all that could be fixed somehow, putting extraneous things like {ji'i} between the digits of a number is very distracting, so the canonical use of {ji'i} would be bad on its own, whether or not there is a competing interpretation. Since the only way to tell what value a digit has in in a number in Lojban is by its position, it is important that its position is easily and immediately identified. {ki'o} helps to do this by grouping the digits in threes. Perhaps a pattern of usage will develop, say stressing the tens and not stressing the hundreds and units for example, so that numbers can be easily understood. But if a {ji'i} can crop up surreptitiously anywhere between them, this pattern is disrupted and understanding numbers in speech becomes more difficult. The reported usage is probably written, but I think even in writing ji'i can be confusing by haphazardly separating digits in different groupings. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.