From araizen@newmail.net Wed Dec 19 08:22:39 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 19 Dec 2001 16:22:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 23948 invoked from network); 19 Dec 2001 16:22:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 19 Dec 2001 16:22:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO enigma.barak.net.il) (212.150.48.99) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 19 Dec 2001 16:22:38 -0000 Received: from out.newmail.net ([10.10.11.11]) by enigma.barak.net.il (InterMail vK.4.03.00.00 201-232-121 license 5444ddd44659357c6c93343e0ce38507) with SMTP id <20011219162322.EFWI1225.enigma@out.newmail.net> for ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:23:22 +0200 Received: from default ([62.0.180.106]) by out.newmail.net ; Wed, 19 Dec 2001 18:23:25 +0200 Message-ID: <005e01c1890f$c729ba80$6ab4003e@default> To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20011217224458.00c27aa0@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217201146.00c278d0@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011217224458.00c27aa0@pop.cais.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20011218021856.00c40680@pop.cais.com> <20011219035247.GA815@twcny.rr.com> Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 04:34:53 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 From: "Adam Raizen" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 12660 la rab.spir. cusku di'e > But {na'eca'a} parses, and in fact {na'epu'i} is even in the cmavo list. > CAhA is just glaringly different from other tense cmavo in the way it's > negated, though. People _do_ say {ka'enai}, when {na'eka'e} would be the > grammatical version. There is a difference in meaning between 'na ka'e' and 'na'eka'e', and while it might not be important in most cases, it probably is in some. > Okay. I'm willing to accept that this system is more powerful, but is > there any document which explains how this power should be _used_? The > Book rarely uses more than two tenses at a time, so it doesn't give much > of an indication of how they interact. It's the job of users of lojban to discover how the power should be used. The book started us off, and now we have the other 75% to discover. > Also, I know from other situations like (as you point out) numbers, and > UI, that meaningless conglomerations of words can be grammatical. It's > not the grammar's job to restrict semantics. Going to the logical extreme, we could make everything be of selma'o UI, including selbrivla. That wouldn't restrict anyone from saying anything, but it also wouldn't be able to be called unambiguous in any sense. Grammatical specifications of how to use the different selma'o are necessary, though there may be room in the current system for improvement. > How does this justify VA and ZI being separate? And do they in fact have > different grammar, or is this another case of a bogus split in selma'o? > (I forget what the other one was - I think it involved TAhE) Yes, ZAhO and TAhE and number+ROI are all grammatically identical, but putting ZAhO and TAhE into one selma'o wouldn't help learning at all, since there's a semantic distinction to be made, and any glance at the formal grammar would reveal that they're grammatically identical. mu'o mi'e .adam.