Message-ID: <79.3d4c181.264986fc@aol.com>
To: lojban@egroups.com
From: pycyn@aol.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Mailing-List: list lojban@egroups.com; contact lojban-owner@egroups.com
Precedence: bulk
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 11:21:32 EDT
Subject: Re: [lojban] RE: Intro and Questions
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Length: 3030
Lines: 63

In a message dated 5/8/00 6:39:41 PM CST, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:

<< Subj:     Re: [lojban] RE: Intro and Questions
 Date:  5/8/00 6:39:41 PM CST
 From:  jjllambias@hotmail.com (Jorge Llambias)
 To:    lojban@egroups.com
 
 la pycyn cusku di'e
 
 >Not exactly my problem.  {zo zo'u} is a well-formed sumti. For some
 >well-formed sumti, S -- all the LE and LA ones at least, and I think some
 >others -- you can form a new sumti by prefixing LE+X.
 
 That happens to be true, I think, but it is a strange way to
 put it. It is not even the most general case. To prefix a LE
 to a sumti what you need is that it have an explicit outer
 quantifier. Is that what you mean by X?
 
 >What is the condition
 >on X that allows this?  At a guess, it has to be that X+ S is itself a
 >well-formed sumti and it is strictly this to which the LE is prefixed.
 
 If by X you mean a quantifier, that is correct. If you mean
 something like {do}, then no, it doesn't work.
 {le do ci le gerku} is a well formed sumti, but
 {do ci le gerku} is not.>>
So X has to be a quantifier -- but LE may be LE+ sumti, apparently.
 
<< >So
 >the fact that LE absorbs {do} and {vi} into new LE is irrelevant except 
 >that
 >LE S alone is not a sumti.
 
 To say that LE absorbs {do} is at least suspect. And I don't
 see how you can say that it absorbs {vi}. In {le vi broda}
 if anything {vi} is absorbed by {broda}, it is part of the
 selbri that makes up the sumti-tail. For example, if you want
 to add an internal quantifier it will be {le ci vi broda},
 not what you'd expect if {vi} was absorbed by {le}.
 
 I know that in Loglan {vi} and {do} are taken to be part of
 the article (modifiers of the article?) but in Lojban this
 is not at all the case, unless you take a very superficial
 view. If you look at all the structures it just doesn't work.>>
You might think that, after all the times I have learned this language, I 
would think first of the contamination from the last language (but one, 
typically) when I get into a problem.  In this case, I admit that I was aided 
by finding the missing piece so useful: Suppose I have {le so nanmu} and then 
{ci le so nanmu vu sanli ije ci le so nanmu va sanli} and then I want to talk 
about the first group: I can't griceanly say 
{le ci le so nanmu}, nor can I use {le vi nanmu}, since breaks the connection 
with the original group.  {levi ci le so nanmu} would be just what I want.  
On the other hand, I does appear that LE still absorbs {do} -- indeed Sumti 
generally (some exceptions?) -- LE+ Sumti can go anywhere LE can go except in 
front of another sumti in front of yet another sumti or sumti tail  -- not a 
good way to put it in YACC terms, admittedly.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have a voice mail message waiting for you at iHello.com:
http://click.egroups.com/1/3555/3/_/17627/_/957886460/
------------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-unsubscribe@onelist.com