From @YaleVM.YCC.YALE.EDU:LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET Thu Sep 9 09:29:15 1993 Received: from ELI.CS.YALE.EDU by NEBULA.SYSTEMSZ.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Sep 1993 13:28:35 -0400 Received: from YALEVM.YCC.YALE.EDU by eli.CS.YALE.EDU via SMTP; Thu, 9 Sep 1993 13:28:30 -0400 Message-Id: <199309091728.AA09004@eli.CS.YALE.EDU> Received: from CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU by YaleVM.YCC.Yale.Edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 4049; Thu, 09 Sep 93 13:26:51 EDT Received: from CUVMB.COLUMBIA.EDU by CUVMB.CC.COLUMBIA.EDU (Mailer R2.07) with BSMTP id 1632; Thu, 09 Sep 93 13:29:18 EDT Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 13:29:15 -0400 Reply-To: vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Re: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita To: Erik Rauch Status: RO X-Status: > Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 11:13:54 EDT > From: Jorge LLambias > Subject: Re: Parsing tenses and sumti tcita > > mi ti klama ta tu > > ({mi ti} {klama <[ta tu] VAU>}) > > > > As you see, the sumti are bracketed together. > > I think I remember John saying that one should not read too much from > the parser's bracketing. In the above, it would seem that the sumti after > the selbri are at a different level than those before it, while > semantically they are not. The before/after difference is due to the way the grammar is defined and doesn't imply any differences. Actually, at the grammatical level the entities I'm refering are not sumti but terms. However, ignoring the termsets there are 5 types of terms: 1. placed sumti 2. FA tagged sumti 3. sumti ------- 4. KU 5. NA KU where is a (tense, BAI etc.) tag Now, 1-3 are sumti of one type or another and 4&5 are interpreted presently as floating selbri tcita. I have never felt quite comfortable with these floating selbri tcita. They have been used mainly to shift the emphasis, e.g. naku mi klama The same result with even more emphasis can be obtained with na klama fa mi I think the latter structure is much more intuitive and doesn't lead to mush at the level. The other situation {naku} has been used is in logical clauses where it has some merit. I think, however, that this could be handled in some cleaner way which would permit unifying the syntax/semantics at term level. co'o mi'e veion ------------------------------------------------------------------ Veijo Vilva vilva@viikki21.helsinki.fi