From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Fri Dec 18 14:22:13 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:22:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLlDB-0008KS-5c for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:22:13 -0800 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16] helo=mail.cec.wustl.edu) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1NLlCs-0007mt-Gv for lojban-list@lojban.org; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:21:58 -0800 Received: from grid.cec.wustl.edu (grid.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.20.97]) by mail.cec.wustl.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DD3B1E8056; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:21:47 -0600 (CST) Received: by grid.cec.wustl.edu (Postfix, from userid 29287) id 231D42576A1; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:21:47 -0600 (CST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grid.cec.wustl.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 148B823F78E; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:21:47 -0600 (CST) Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:21:46 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: The New Method In-Reply-To: <925d17560912181357y2ba48da3rf9190d51c3ed9690@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: References: <8a20e9f70912181024t29e56190u762c85c8373e0c6a@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560912181211o485199adj246be26f7ce5e368@mail.gmail.com> <8a20e9f70912181227j40b5b65didcef9b757ce87df0@mail.gmail.com> <925d17560912181357y2ba48da3rf9190d51c3ed9690@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (LRH 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-58695404-1620425768-1261174907=:3281" This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. X-archive-position: 16705 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list ---58695404-1620425768-1261174907=:3281 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Fri, 18 Dec 2009, Jorge Llamb=EDas wrote: >> In >> practice, this has pretty much been a non issue - negation and tags >> are taught later, and they are described as being on the outside of >> the "whole selbri" if you can kinda catch my drift. I wasn't able to >> completely describe my style in the original post. I assure you I'm >> doing the best to address the issue. > > OK. Arguments can be made both ways as to what is better. Since you > can say things like "lo ca klama", if "ca" is not part of the selbri > you have to specify that it's not just a selbri that can be converted > into a sumti with "lo", but a selbri plus its tag. > > I don't expect this to be much of a problem in informal teaching, but > when you write it down more formally you have to consider that it may > end up being used as a reference work in the future, so it's better to > keep things as consistent as possible. I guess I hadn't thought of {ca klama} as a selbri. I had considered it = as a selbri tcita ({ca}) attached to a selbri ({klama}). But it's possible th= at was I was thinking of as selbri is more what has been called "tanru unit"= , but that seems even more complicated. Perhaps the solution is to not claim that {lo ... ku} can convert only se= lbri into sumti, but just claim that it can convert selbri into sumti, and lea= ve other constructs for later, when they've been introduced on their own. >> I really haven't had a problem justifying its existence - though I do >> admit I have to rely on the tried and true "Just accept that it's >> there" argument to get it into people's heads. > > In the wave there is a comment: > > I don=92t see why we need the {be} yet > > which is unanswered. When I tried to think of an answer, I realized > that in fact we *don't* need it, except to make "ku" more elidable. Yes, it would have been possible to make {lo ... ku} convert a bridi (wit= h empty x1, or maybe even {ke'a}) into a sumti. Under that model, {ku} wou= ld be elidable far less frequently. We'd also get internal sumti in tanru as {= mi zdani do klama} instead of {mi zdani be do [be'o] klama}. I think lojban= did make a good trade off here, but it's hard to explain the reasoning withou= t mentioning the elidability. If we had enough students, we could try a lot of variations. Teaching th= e terminators as an actual part of the construct, which can in some cases b= e omitted if doing so doesn't cause a different parse, does seem to produce= much better results than teaching them as something extra that needs to be add= ed at odd times. It might be possible to teach elidability right after {lo ... ku}, but ho= ld off on {cu} until considerably later (after {NU ... kei}, for instance). = It would still encourage use of terminators when they actually matter, but w= ould explain why {be ... bei ... be'o} are needed. Something to ponder. mi'e la xalbo mu'o --=20 Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ "I have a very firm grasp on reality! I can reach out and strangle it an= y time!" ---58695404-1620425768-1261174907=:3281-- 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.