From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET  Sun Aug 15 23:08:36 1993
Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 14 Aug 1993 23:10:33 -0400
Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Sat, 14 Aug 1993 23:10:28 -0400
Message-Id: <199308150310.AA02795@eli.CS.YALE.EDU>
Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2)
   with BSMTP id 5841; Sat, 14 Aug 93 23:09:14 EDT
Received: from YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@YALEVM) by YALEVM.CIS.YALE.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 7625; Sat, 14 Aug 1993 23:09:14 -0400
Date:         Sun, 15 Aug 1993 13:08:36 +1000
Reply-To: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN%CUVMB.bitnet@YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU>
From: Nick Nicholas <nsn@MULLIAN.EE.MU.OZ.AU>
Subject:      Re: TECH: Bytes and bits
X-To:         Mr Andrew Rosta <ucleaar@ucl.ac.uk>
X-Cc:         Lojban Mailing List <lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: Erik Rauch <rauch>
In-Reply-To:  <9308142016.AA69224@link-1.ts.bcc.ac.uk> from "Mr Andrew Rosta"
              at Aug 14, 93 09:16:57 pm
Status: O
X-Status: 

To Mr Andrew Rosta respond I thus:

#Nick, would you post to the list on the proper usage of PA-lujvo
#- this has been alluded to but I have not seen the substance
#of your recommendations mentioned.

This is what I had to say on them in my lujvo article (unrevised):


4.4. PA-based lujvo.

Lujvo containing numerals tend to play havoc with our predictions of lujvo
meaning. This is because numerals are not brivla that enter into tanru
relations with tertanru; they act to quantify the tertanru directly. Even
if we presume a cmavo of grammeme MOI to make them into brivla, there is
an ambiguity in which cmavo to use. {pavjbe} is ambiguous, and in fact
only appears in its disambiguated alternatives {pavmemjbe} ({pamei jbena} ---
only-begotten) and {pavmomjbe} ({pamoi jbena} --- first born). Both
alternatives have been presumed in the jvoste: thus {relmla}, two-sided
({se mlana lo remei}) vs. {so'ipre}, crowd ({so'imei co prenu}) vs. {relpru},
second-last ({remoi le'i purci leka jibni le se purci}).

{relmla} shows another problem with PA-based lujvo, which is particularly
evident with {ro}-based lujvo.

[I then outline what turns out to be the xekskapi problem, which is not
restricted to PA-lujvo.]

***

I've been thinking about this further. The conclusion I've arrived at is
this: {pavybroda} is an abbreviation for either {broda zei pamei} or {broda
zei pamoi} (Potentially also {broda zei pacu'o}). Which of the three is not
always guessable from context, though I think the first makes most sense most
of the time. PA-lujvo encourage xekskapi-type lujvo, which I disapprove of
(thus "two-sided" is not {relmla}, but {relselmla}; {relmla} corresponds to
"two-side", which doesn't make much sense). Of course, there are the other
normal ambiguities: if we prefer {pamei broda} to {broda pamei}, then {broda
be lo pamei}, say, is a likely interpretation.

Though the leap from {so'ipre} to {prenu so'imei} is broad, and I think
people should always be very cautious in constructing PA-lujvo, and though
it intuits to me that {prenu so'imei} is somehow more Lojbanic than {so'ipre},
I really can think of no good reason to reject the compound.

And 1, Nick 0.5? %^)

*******************************************************************************
 A freshman once observed to me:         Nick Nicholas am I, of Melbourne, Oz.
 On the edge of the Rubicon,             nsn@munagin.ee.mu.oz.au (IRC: nicxjo)
 men don't go fishing.                   CogSci and CompSci & wannabe Linguist.
   - Alice Goodman, _Nixon In China_     Mail me! Mail me! Mail me! Or don't!!