From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 05 12:24:43 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:24:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnKga-000133-Pj for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:24:24 -0700 Received: from web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.40]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnKgX-00012w-OD for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:24:24 -0700 Received: (qmail 85415 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jun 2006 19:24:19 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=d9GX6XmQgoeU/rD8azdRXX4YmKPHw0Apu0HfTAyIsEBz7DoT+ALUWcjxy8g8tfdq2h8WwviNlYlE3ayzMdj+RO+8fLf8v1VEjvUAnKEfKnPUFXs5ZhVcJ+Mjxhgu8qKJ0+ywpD4KKrirHFfloKTOSKCPk+nNix0Nuw2DzfV8D1U= ; Message-ID: <20060605192419.85413.qmail@web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.142] by web81314.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 12:24:19 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 12:24:19 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560606051049u7402ef53oee9f1a79625a6983@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11729 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list Very nice. But, since the terms might be differently predicated on the two brivla, we would have to place the markers on the predicate not the term. This seems to mean that these markers would themselves be strung out like terms with the predicate, to be properly correllated with the terms in the term list, probably something like (using d and c for distrib and collect) ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u broda d c c d c * brode c d d c d (* because I suspect the conjunction at this point will change since we are connective bridi tails not selbri). Not yet a very comely system, though it would be rare that we would need to show all the markers. Still, it does circumvent the problem you not (and, no doubt creates other for the parser or interpreter). --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/5/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > > > > > As you may recall, my suggestion mirrors > the > > > > English for "individually" and > "collectively" (or > > > > "together"), attaching as convenient to > sumti or > > > > predicate place (so, I suppose that UI is > about > > > > the only selmaho that will work -- unless > we > > > > invent a new one). > > Here is a mathematical proof that it cannot be > done with a > single word. Consider the sentence: > > ko'a ko'e ko'i ko'o ko'u broda gi'e brode > > It consists of eight words, so there are > exactly nine places where > a word meaning "together" could be added. > > But there are ten argument places it could be > modifying: > each of the five slots of broda and each of the > five slots of brode. > > Therefore, a single word, no matter how > strategically well placed, could > not be used to do the job of unambiguously > marking any sumti slot > as collective. > > 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. > > 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.