From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Apr 06 17:35:15 2004 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (qmail 60154 invoked from network); 6 Apr 2004 19:04:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 6 Apr 2004 19:04:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO chain.digitalkingdom.org) (64.81.49.134) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 6 Apr 2004 19:04:55 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BAvsP-00024X-5d for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:04:49 -0700 Received: from dsl081-049-134.sfo1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([64.81.49.134] helo=chain.digitalkingdom.org) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.30) id 1BAvrX-00023c-3I; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:03:55 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.30) id 1BAvrO-00023I-Ae for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Apr 2004 12:03:46 -0700 Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 12:03:46 -0700 Message-ID: <20040406190346.GG5197@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: lojban-list@lojban.org References: <20040329070110.GO6569@digitalkingdom.org> <20040329120955.GB16482@ccil.org> <20040329231516.GU6569@digitalkingdom.org> <20040330055426.GD27631@ccil.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040330055426.GD27631@ccil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-archive-position: 7448 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-list: lojban-list To: lojban@yahoogroups.com X-eGroups-Remote-IP: 64.81.49.134 X-eGroups-From: Robin Lee Powell From: Robin Lee Powell Reply-To: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [lojban] Re: Robin Confused (was Re: Re: "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1)) X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out X-Yahoo-Message-Num: 21934 On Tue, Mar 30, 2004 at 12:54:26AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > I was concerned to point out that I thought it probably *was* > syntactic, but I wasn't 100% sure because of the question of ordering > -- is it strictly leftmost-outermost to rightmost-innermost, or do > bare tenses have different rules from tense+KU in the way that bare NA > is different from NA+KU? I think it's the former, and so does xorxes, > and so does the Red Book -- so what it boils down to is, go ahead and > allow tense with or without KU. Mmmmmm, boiling. Thanks. > The only point of my examples was to give a concrete case where > ordering of tense instances can change the meaning. Gotcha. > This, however, leads to a more fundamental point that xorxes has > pointed out before. In Loglan, tense cmavo can appear in any order > with no grammatical rules. Lojban has an intricate tense grammar with > strong restrictions, but in most contexts if you break the restriction > the parser will just supply appropriate ku's and it becomes > grammatical anyhow. So nobody will be able to learn those rules except > in restricted contexts like I+tense+BO, where no KU is allowed. That > makes me wonder if the byfy shouldn't just jettison the rules, or > transform them into something other than syntactic rules -- > conventions of interpretation instead. Or transform them into grammatical rules. I agree; they should be made either more or less formal. My stance on half-way pseudo-formality should be obvious at this point. -Robin -- Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** I'm a *male* Robin. "Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all from running out and eating all the cookies." -- Eliezer Yudkowsky http://www.lojban.org/ *** .i cimo'o prali .ui