From LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@UGA.CC.UGA.EDU Thu Aug 4 20:03:51 1994 Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs1.digex.net with SMTP id AA27194 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Thu, 4 Aug 1994 20:03:49 -0400 Message-Id: <199408050003.AA27194@nfs1.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 6095; Thu, 04 Aug 94 19:58:14 EDT Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.1d/1.7f) with BSMTP id 1400; Thu, 4 Aug 1994 19:58:14 -0400 Date: Fri, 5 Aug 1994 02:54:17 +0300 Reply-To: veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI Sender: Lojban list From: Veijo Vilva Subject: Re: TECH: Narrative connectives? X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier Status: RO la xorxes cusku di'e > Date: Thu, 4 Aug 1994 17:22:00 EDT > From: Jorge Llambias > la veion cusku di'e >> I was just thinking... > Always a dangerous activity :) >> Logically connected sentences >> >> (1) mi nelci ti .ije mi nelci ta >> mi citka .ije mi pinxe >> >> can be conveniently shortened to >> >> (2) mi nelci ti .e ta >> mi citka je pinxe > > Actually, the second one should be > > mi citka gi'e pinxe > > because a tanru is not really automatically expandable to two sentences. > Right. > Also, you could have had {mi citka ti .ije mi pinxe ta} which is > {mi citka ti gi'e pinxe ta}, and you probably, in (1), didn't mean to say > that you were eating and drinking the same thing. Again an unfortunate choice of an example sentence :_) > Your point is just as valid, though. [...] >> in a similar way. Sometimes it would be quite natural and >> convenient to be able to say, e.g. >> >> (4) *mi nelci ti gi ta >> I like this ... and that >> >> *mi citka gi pinxe >> I eat ... and drink > > Unfortunately, I think it doesn't work. Consider: > > ge mi citka ti gi do pinxe ta > > Will the parser understand it as: > > ge (mi citka ti) gi (do pinxe ta) > > or as: > > ge mi citka (ti gi do) > > and then find an error with the next word? Replace {gi} with, say, {xi'e} (I should have done it, just to be sure :_( [...] >> and tense relationships within tanru (not presently allowed) >> >> (6) mi citka .ibabo mi pinxe >> -> *mi citka gibabo pinxe > > I think this was permitted under Mad Proposal. It has to be bridi-tail > connection though, not tanru connection. Bridi-tails have been there... and checking from the selbri- level of the grammar it seems tanru with mixed tense connection ( mi citka jebabo pinxe ) are allowed - so it is just a question of connective type :_) > Jorge So the question boils down to: Is there a different enough connection (from a logical AND and the various non-logical connections) involved to warrant one or more additional cmavo? In the case of comparisons there is a difference between (a) mi nelci ti .esemaubo ta and (b) *mi nelci ti xi'esemaubo ta in that (a) makes clearly all the 3 claims involved but (b) could omit {mi nelci ta} (or even {mi nelci ti} ?). Of course, the same argument could apply to (c) mi zukte jeba'obo pensi and (d) *mi zukte xi'eba'obo pensi i.e. in (c) I DO think afterwards but (d) could leave that open. But then, this would differ from the straight narrative (e) mi zukte .iba'obo mi pensi which seems to make all the 3 claims. Eh? But how does (f) mi zukte .ijeba'obo mi pensi differ from (e) ? And could there be a difference between (g) mi nelci ti .e ta le zukte jeba'obo pensi and (using {xi'i} for a narrative connective) (h) *mi nelci ti xi'i ta *le zukte xi'iba'obo pensi Might we actually need TWO sets of new connectives, afterthought mixed connectives to express just the tense/modal relationship and narrative connectives along the lines of my original posting (correcting the details :_) ? The afterthought case can be handled in a rather non-Zipfian way, of course: (j) mi nelci ti .emaugi ti gi ta (but that's even worse than (b) :__( co'o mi'e veion --------------------------------- .i mi du la'o sy. Veijo Vilva sy. ---------------------------------