From pycyn@aol.com Tue Oct 30 13:56:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_0_1); 30 Oct 2001 21:56:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 79807 invoked from network); 30 Oct 2001 21:56:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.223 with QMQP; 30 Oct 2001 21:56:33 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-r04.mx.aol.com) (152.163.225.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 30 Oct 2001 21:56:33 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-r04.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v31_r1.8.) id r.4b.13660234 (4453) for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:56:23 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <4b.13660234.29107c07@aol.com> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2001 16:56:23 EST Subject: Re: [lojban] SE--FA interaction To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_4b.13660234.29107c07_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 6.0 for Windows US sub 10535 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 11794 --part1_4b.13660234.29107c07_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2001 12:06:25 PM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes: Has anybody ever bothered to do this before & written up the results?> > My earlier remark is not quite accurate. The Loglan stuff was only about SE and combos to get any possible arrangement. It was, in fact, part of the argument for having FA. So far as I remember, no one ever recalculated with FA. I don't understand the two cases. The position of the selbri seems irrelevant except when before the first occurring sumti, where it will force a {fa} on the first sumti if it were the first place (it would be required anyhow if it were any ohter). Case ii looks to be just like case i with all the places moved up -- and so one more complex FA and one more complex SE to handle 6-place predicates. Does easiest mean "fewest ordering words", "fewest ordering syllable" or "conceptually simplest devise"? The latter is almost always going to be FA plain, except otherwise unmodified SE. --part1_4b.13660234.29107c07_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In a message dated 10/30/2001 12:06:25 PM Central Standard Time, arosta@uclan.ac.uk writes:
<The discussion of word orders has prompted me to revive a once-abandoned
exercise of working out the easiest way to order 5 sumti places (i) in a bridi
for each relevant possible position of the selbri, and (ii) in a sumti tail (where
selbri position is fixed and x1 can't be fa-tagged).

Has anybody ever bothered to do this before & written up the results?>


My earlier remark is not quite accurate.  The Loglan stuff was only about SE and combos to get any possible arrangement.  It was, in fact, part of  the argument for having FA.  So far as I remember, no one ever recalculated  with FA.

I don't understand the two cases.  The position of the selbri seems irrelevant except when before the first occurring sumti, where it will force a {fa} on the first sumti if it were the first place (it would be required anyhow if it were any ohter).  Case ii looks to be just like case i with all the places moved up -- and so one more complex FA and one more complex SE to handle 6-place predicates.
Does easiest mean "fewest ordering words", "fewest ordering syllable" or "conceptually simplest devise"?  The latter is almost always going to be FA plain, except otherwise unmodified SE. --part1_4b.13660234.29107c07_boundary--