From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Wed Feb 04 22:31:16 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LUxlc-0004Dv-9j for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0800 Received: from mail-fx0-f20.google.com ([209.85.220.20]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LUxlY-0004DY-0f for lojban-list@lojban.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:16 -0800 Received: by fxm13 with SMTP id 13so103628fxm.10 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:05 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:reply-to:date:message-id :subject:from:to:content-type; bh=NCD/d2xridkStsNLLZ67Mq6HUmr3v2KM9t1wqmUQWdA=; b=VBFdbogRKXp2UaDDoIUasuSbb5KF/DNK3NYr84JHl87NTPRjmS/1dg8oVPGQk6WHbT lo/DlwL5XDNye09hFtKttscXlkwUxKc81jGeg3hbKuqIdiv66pfW+VjHEflxDTom9gKS tRv8N39eam61L+TmxVmlhbu92H+27GMLG+Z74= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; b=S2pt+7vshqltrcXINCljRUeUn7AAjt9ZtMLn7+6YIUmPezBxYw7f1T6wbR9wA55AQz adFKpGt+wzqRRyu7qimmNkBjKG6JykDkaf+Rzi0OHcOnQs/ActbSXQnO0udWb0232Oe6 xU/cSR3cYbL+DWd2DY+IIqcKp34nxe+igPU+Y= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.108.75 with SMTP id e11mr24732fap.97.1233815465316; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 22:31:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2009 06:31:05 +0000 Message-ID: <7f55268a0902042231wdcbb933nc9526ff4cb390fd7@mail.gmail.com> Subject: [lojban] Missing out obvious words From: Christopher Done To: lojban-list@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001636c5a72e8751560462260cbe X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 15258 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: chrisdone@googlemail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --001636c5a72e8751560462260cbe Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Some Lojban words that we use in casual conversation seem unnecessary. An example is: Person 1: {mi tavla} Person 2, response 1: {tavla ma} Person 2, response 2: {go'i ma} Person 2, response 3: {ma} It seems that response 3 has obvious meaning. We can take it to different selbri places, too: {tavla fi ma} => {go'i fi ma} => {fi ma} Has this kind of usage been observed to be common in casual Lojban conversation? This kind of elision is acceptable for answers to questions: Person 1: {do tavla fi ma} Person 2: {mi tavla fi la djan} => {tavla fi la djan} => {go'i fi la djan} => {la djan} An example of pragmatism of this flavour, which I have seen recently, brought to my attention by Daniel Brockman, is {ja'a} and {na} (NA). Is {go'i} required when using these in response? Person 1: {do tavla la djan} Person 2: {na go'i} or Person 2: {go'i} This seems common on the Lojban IRC. But what about: Person 1: {do tavla la djan} Person 2: {na} or Person 2: {ja'a} Looking at the CLL (Chapter 19, Section 5), this is acceptable. To quote: > The full list of non-bridi utterances suitable as answers to questions is: > any number of sumti (with elidable terminator ``vau'', see Chapter 6) > an ek or gihek (logical connectives, see Chapter 14) > a number, or any mathematical expression placed in parentheses (see Chapter > 18 ) a bare ``na'' negator (to negate > some previously expressed bridi), or corresponding ``ja'a'' affirmer (see Chapter > 15 ) a relative clause (to modify > some previously expressed sumti, see Chapter 8) > a prenex/topic (to modify some previously expressed bridi, see Chapter 16) > linked arguments (beginning with ``be'' or ``bei'' and attached to some > previously expressed selbri, often in a description,see Chapter 5 > ) > > At the beginning of a text, the following non-bridi are also permitted: > one or more names (to indicate direct address without ``doi'', see Chapter > 6 ) indicators (to express a > prevailing attitude, see Chapter 13 ) > ``nai'' (to vaguely negate something or other, see Chapter 15 > ) > > Where not needed for the expression of answers, most of these are made > grammatical for pragmatic reasons: people will say them in conversation, and > there is no reason to rule them out as ungrammatical merely because most of > them are vague. > See here for the page: http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c19/s5.html So proceeding with the knowledge that many bridi-less answers are allowed, presumably because they are so *obvious*, it seems an interesting idea that questions can be bridi-less, *when obvious, as above*. I haven't discovered anything in the CLL about bridi-less questions, this is why I'm asking here. Thoughts? --001636c5a72e8751560462260cbe Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Some Lojban words that we use in casual conversation seem unnecessary.
<= br>An example is:

Person 1: {mi tavla}
Person 2, response 1: {tav= la ma}
Person 2, response 2: {go'i ma}
Person 2, response 3: {ma}=

It seems that response 3 has obvious meaning. We can take it to differe= nt selbri places, too:

{tavla fi ma} =3D> {go'i fi ma} =3D>= ; {fi ma}

Has this kind of usage been observed to be common in casual Lojban conversa= tion? This kind of elision is acceptable for answers to questions:

P= erson 1: {do tavla fi ma}
Person 2: {mi tavla fi la djan} =3D> {tavla= fi la djan} =3D> {go'i fi la djan} =3D> {la djan}

An example of pragmatism of this flavour, which I have seen recently, b= rought to my attention by Daniel Brockman, is {ja'a} and {na} (NA). Is = {go'i} required when using these in response?

Person 1: {do tavl= a la djan}
Person 2: {na go'i}
or
Person 2: {go'i}

This seems com= mon on the Lojban IRC. But what about:

Person 1: {do tavla la djan}<= br> Person 2: {na}
or
Person 2: {ja'a}

Looking at the CLL (Chapter 19, Section 5), thi= s is acceptable. To quote:

The full list of non-bridi utterances suitable as answers to questions is:

any number of sumti (with elidable terminator = ``vau'', see Chapter 6) an = ek or gihek (logical connectives, see Chapter 14) a number, or any mathematical expression placed in parentheses (see Chap= ter 18) a bare ``na'' negator (to negate some previously expressed bridi), or corresponding ``ja'a'' affirmer (see Chapter 15) a relative clause (to modify some previously expressed sumti, see Chapter 8) a prenex/topic (to modify some previously expressed bridi, see Chapter 16) linked arguments (beginning with ``be'' or ``bei'' and attached to som= e previously expressed selbri, often in a description,see Chapter 5)

At the beginni= ng of a text, the following non-bridi are also permitted:

one or more names (to indicate direct address wit= hout ``doi'', see C= hapter 6) indicators (to express a prevailing attitude, see Chapter 13) ``nai'' (to vaguely negate something or other, see Chapter 15)

Where not needed for the expression of answers, m= ost of these are made grammatical for pragmatic reasons: people will say them in conversation, and there is no reason to rule them out as ungrammatical merely because most of them are vague.

=20 =20 =20 =20 See here for the page: = http://jbotcan.org/cllc/c19/s5.html

So proceeding with the knowl= edge that many bridi-less answers are allowed, presumably because they are = so obvious, it seems an interesting idea that questions can be bridi= -less, when obvious, as above.

I haven't discovered anything in the CLL about bridi-less questions= , this is why I'm asking here.

Thoughts?
--001636c5a72e8751560462260cbe-- 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.