Date:  Sat, 1 Nov 1997 08:37:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <199711011337.IAA00803@locke.ccil.org>
Reply-To: "Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}" <sdlee@CS.HKU.HK>
Sender: Lojban list <LOJBAN@CUVMB.BITNET>
From: "Lee Sau Dan ~{@nJX6X~}" <sdlee@CS.HKU.HK>
Subject:      Re: terminators
X-To:         "Sender: Lojban list" <LOJBAN@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu>
To: John Cowan <cowan@LOCKE.CCIL.ORG>
In-Reply-To:  Ivan A Derzhanski's message of Sat, 1 Nov 1997 15:31:01 +0200
X-Mozilla-Status: 0011
Content-Length: 1291
Lines: 39

>>>>> "Ivan" == Ivan A Derzhanski <iad@MATH.ACAD.BG> writes:


    Ivan> It is also not a good example because _suo3yi3_ does not
    Ivan> terminate the construction; it simply introduces the second
    Ivan> part.

Yes, you're right.



    >> For examples of terminators, how about postpositional
    >> languages, such as Korean and Japanese?  Aren't the
    >> postpositions terminators by themselves?

    Ivan> No.  A terminator is a (frequently optional) right bracket
    Ivan> that matches a required left bracket.  If a postposition is
    Ivan> a right bracket, what is the left?

That's  implicit -- analoguous the  elided terminators in Lojban.  You
don't need brackets in   postfix (reverse Polish) or  prefix  (Polish)
notations, do you?


So, take this Japanese sentence as an example:

            koko_ni   hon_ga    ari_masu.
Explicit:   here at   book ) exist  present)
Implicit: ((         (

The positions of the left parenthesis are understood.



--
Lee Sau Dan                     'u&u40(Big5)                    ~{@nJX6X~}(HZ)
.----------------------------------------------------------------------------.
| http://www.cs.hku.hk/~sdlee                        e-mail: sdlee@cs.hku.hk |
`----------------------------------------------------------------------------'