From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Sat May 29 03:51:31 1993 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by MINERVA.CIS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 29 May 1993 14:24:46 -0400 Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4911; Sat, 29 May 93 14:23:54 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1828; Sat, 29 May 93 14:25:13 EDT Date: Sat, 29 May 1993 10:51:31 PDT Reply-To: fschulz@pyramid.com Sender: Lojban list From: fschulz@PYRAMID.COM Subject: dikni-tanru X-To: lojban list To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: Message-ID: jimc wants a semantic analyzer to have some chance of interpreting tanru using dikni-tanru rules. I have looked at my own usage and I see at least 4 types of tanru operators. 1) semantic restriction 2) semantic extension 3) poetic metaphor 4) language incompetence For me, the major usage is type 4. I tend to use tanru when I am confused and do not know what what structure to use. I string gismu together in the perhaps futile hope that something useful will emerge. On the next editing pass I try to find a better structure. I would like to see markers so I can explicitly say which type I am using. According to Zipf's law, type 4 should be the unmarked form. Heavy type 4 usage of tanru will create difficulties for any semantic analysis programs. There will also be a strong mabla-glico influence on tanru creation which needs to be countered to get cultural neutrality. -- Frank Schulz ( fschulz@pyramid.com )