Message-Id: <m0tKiIk-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 29 Nov 1995 03:54:38 -0500
Reply-To:     Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         Logical Language Group <lojbab@ACCESS.DIGEX.NET>
Subject:      Re: TECH: PROPOSED GRAMMAR CHANGE X3: Extension of JA
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 2974
Lines: 65

>> Were it not for the possibility that JOI is a
>> relatively open-ended set of connectives,
>
>What do you mean open-ended? Are there plans to add more?

No plans - no.  But it is rather obvious that the number of ways two things
can be non-logically connected a) has never been well-analyzed semantically
b) well, the current set was discovered and not planned, and hence cannot be
said to neatly encompass the possibilities.

JCB had only one non-logical connector, which he used in a trivial way in
tanru and nowhere else.  We have ce and ce'o at minimum that have seen wide
and necessary use, in addition to joi - which encompasses JCB's connective
but may be being overstretched in current usage.

Adding to JOI is NOT something I would consider propsing before the 5 year
baseline ends, but it is an area that I expect will need looking at, even
if experimtnal xVV cmavo haven't already sprung up by then.

>> (even if it could YACC which I doubt).
>
>How could it possibly not YACC? If JOI YACCs, then JA doing the same
>that JOI does would have no other choice but to YACC.

It probably would work, but I am never sure till I try it. And dual purpose
JOI strained the LR(1)-ness of the language beyond limits and we had to do
speciall fiddling to get it to work.  I don't think I could have justified
this if at the time I thought JOI was going to be even as important a part
of the language as it has become.  You can ALMOST justify a little sloppiness
when you are being non-logical in your connectives, was my reasoning.  But
the logical connectives are part of the "core" of the language, and ambiguity
even in a minimal sense, glares very severely in such a role.

>Some of them don't seem to make any sense. What is the difference
>between {jo'u} and {joi}? If there is a difference worth having,
>how come there isn't a corresponding LE?

Because as I said the semantics of the connectives has never been analyzed.
Actually, though, since you ask, I suspect that the LE for jo'u would have
many similarities to lo'e/le'e which focus on the commonalities in a
disparate set, which is what I THINK jo'u does.

>
>> Nick for one has always
>> found this to be a pain.
>
>So do I, but this change does not aggravate the problem. You don't have
>to use {je} instead of {.e} if you don't want to.


Yes, but you are asking for errors and noisy-environment ambiguity, which we
can tolerate minimally in joi connection, but not in logical connection.
Pragmatics can usually clarify an error in JOI connection; I doubt that it will
be a srobust for logical connection.

>> I would have proposed long ago to make multiple non-logical
>> selma'o with different cmavo assigned to each - the exact oopposite of your
>> proposal. %^)  (WE never seriously considered that one either.)
>
>Why would you like to make the grammar more complicated?

But it wouldn't.  We could then move the respective sets of non-logical
connectives into JE and E, and eliminate JOI.

lojbab