Received: from uga.cc.uga.edu by nfs2.digex.net with SMTP id AA20827 (5.67b8/IDA-1.5 for ); Wed, 14 Dec 1994 02:02:01 -0500 Message-Id: <199412140702.AA20827@nfs2.digex.net> Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU by uga.cc.uga.edu (IBM VM SMTP V2R2) with BSMTP id 9165; Wed, 14 Dec 94 02:01:54 EST Received: from UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (NJE origin LISTSERV@UGA) by UGA.CC.UGA.EDU (LMail V1.2a/1.8a) with BSMTP id 0067; Wed, 14 Dec 1994 02:01:54 -0500 Date: Wed, 14 Dec 1994 07:01:07 +0000 Reply-To: ucleaar Sender: Lojban list From: ucleaar Subject: Re: jei X-To: lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu To: Bob LeChevalier In-Reply-To: (Your message of Tue, 13 Dec 94 18:53:03 EST.) Status: RO X-From-Space-Date: Wed Dec 14 02:02:08 1994 X-From-Space-Address: LOJBAN%CUVMB.BITNET@uga.cc.uga.edu Jorge: > > we only have lojei > > short for "loduhu xukau". > {lojei} is not short for {lodu'u xukau}. {tu'a lojei} is "short" for that, > and it is shorter only because jei has one syllable while du'u has two, > not because the expresion itself is any more compact. Good point. "Mi djuno lo jei" is "there is a truth value that I know", not "I know what the truth value is". Even more reason for the severely limited utility of jei. > > I think what I'd actually like to see is an > > intrrogative sumti, "xahu", so we can get "mi djuno xahu mamta do" (I > > know who is your mother). > > But what grammar would it have? There is no current selmaho that would > allow you that form, I think. If "mi djuno xahu mamta be do", xahu could behave like "lohe", "lehe" syntactically. > And that would only work for makau, what > would you do with mokau, xokau, xukau, jikau, etc? Leave them as they are, along with makau. Of these, makau and xukau are the most frequent; I would like to see a briefer version of loduhu xukau as well, but can't see how to do it. > > This wouldn't handle all uses of Q-kau, by any means, but it would > > often afford considerable brevity. Maybe someone more ingenious can think > > of a more general abbreviatory device, but at any rate such would be > > welcome. > > Why do you need to abbreviate? {mi djuno le du'u makau mamta do} is not > unbearably long, just three more syllables than what you propose (which > doesn't really work as it is). And if the du'u phrase is longer, the two > extra syllables just become irrelevant. It's 3 extra syllables and one or two extra degrees of syntactic subordination, which is also some measure of complexity - i.e . [djuno [lo [duhu [broda [makau]]]]] vs. [djuno [xahu [broda]]]. And of course if terminators are required the complexity leads to more syllables. --- And