Message-Id: <m0tNR4q-0000ZUC@xiron.pc.helsinki.fi>
Date:         Wed, 6 Dec 1995 21:02:09 +0000
Reply-To:     ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Sender:       Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From:         ucleaar <ucleaar@UCL.AC.UK>
Subject:      comments on CONN.TXT
To:           Veijo Vilva <veion@XIRON.PC.HELSINKI.FI>
Content-Length: 3485
Lines: 75

1. 9.10 "If the rule were that the x1 places of the two underlying bridi
were identified, then (since there is nothing special about x1), the
unspecified x4 (route) and x5 (means) places would also have to be the
same, leading to the absurd result that the route from Phoenix to New York
is the same as the route from Rome to New York." (a) There should be
nothing special about x1 but in fact it is given special treatment all
over the place. (b) The reasoning is faulty. The question is: how do
we decide whether this is bridi connection or bridi-tail connection?
It turns out that the distinction is messy.

2. 10.10 "the parser assumes bridi-tail connection". Why? Why not
bridi connection?

3. The logic behind the expansion of 11.5 to 11.6 is not obvious.

4. 12.2. Only x1s of blanu & zdani are merged, so is it possible to
merge other places too?

5. "The true significance of Example 13.5 is that the speaker desires to
know the truth value of each of the two underlying bridi." Rather, the
speaker desires to know the truth value of either of the two underlying
bridi. It is presupposed that only one is true.

6. 13.12 "Here the blank is a logical connective, and therefore
it is grammatical in Lojban to utter a bare logical connective without
anything for it to connect." Can the bare connective be of any
selmao, or does it have to be grammatical if it replaced the question
word?

7. 13.7 "An imperative sentence [lio] is true if the command is obeyed".
The discussion is potentially misleading. It should be explained that
one could obey the command not only by bringing tea, but also by instead
making this not be coffee. Therefore it is only an approximate and
misleading translation of the English.

8. The discussion of 14.1-3 is very dubious. I don't want to redebate
this just now, but I would suggest that it be removed to a paper on
(so-called) massification.

9. 14.5 "Here the ball is neither blue nor red, but partly blue and partly
red." That sounds pretty nonsensical.

10. 14.16. (a) Is there a non-connective version of fahu? As in
"the two men love their respective spouses". (b) How can one tell
which series matches up with which? Is it glorked from context?

11. "The place structure of "casnu" is: the mass x1 discusses/talks about
x2 so the x1 place must be occupied by a mass". This seems nonsensical,
unless the x1 of casnu is merely arbitrarily required to be a mass. So
far as I can tell, only gunma's x1 needs to be a mass.

12. Why was {kehi} preferred to {gaonai}?

13. Why "GAHO [se] BIHI [nai] GAHO" and "[se] BIHI [nai]" rather than
just "[GAHO] [se] BIHI [nai] [GAHO]"? Why is it "ungrammatical to have
just one GAhO"?

14. "18.5)   mi pu klama le zarci gi'e pu tervecnu lo cidja
        I [past] go-to the market, and [past] buy items-of food.
fails to fully represent a feature of the English, namely that the buying
came after the going." It has been persuasively argued that this is not
a feature of the English; it is merely pragmatic. In this case, the
Lojban does not fail to express what the English expresses, because
(i) the English doesn't express it, and (ii) both the English and
the Lojban imply the same thing.

15. 19.1-2 are stupid translations.

16, 19.3 "mi jinvi le du'u loi jmive zvati gi'onai na zvati la .iupiter"
why don't {jmivezvati} form a tanru? How come {la .iupiter} is a
sumti of both {zvati}? How come {gionai} conjoins the two {zvati}
rather than, say, {duu} or {jinvi} with the second {zvati}?

---
And