From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Jun 05 07:40:42 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnGFk-0005Ve-2w for lojban-list-real@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:40:24 -0700 Received: from web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com ([68.142.199.128]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1FnGFi-0005VX-2L for lojban-list@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:40:23 -0700 Received: (qmail 48481 invoked by uid 60001); 5 Jun 2006 14:40:14 -0000 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024; d=sbcglobal.net; h=Message-ID:Received:Date:From:Subject:To:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=49hHwvklOTC8FPY+7e0kqrbr2Eh9w9pwm8X/UBInWsYWfk6XOYhhm8xsvhblVlNYqgp7ZXIrF2Emwx2CmSaIuDytaiYBeaHwK21sVd06JDebYo9I60vR6kjjygvAp1+CumLCclBAXNWSVYo522etjG7c9G5B8Er9Y7lrvxRKJXM= ; Message-ID: <20060605144014.48478.qmail@web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Received: from [70.237.215.142] by web81312.mail.mud.yahoo.com via HTTP; Mon, 05 Jun 2006 07:40:14 PDT Date: Mon, 5 Jun 2006 07:40:14 -0700 (PDT) From: John E Clifford Subject: [lojban] Re: A (rather long) discussion of {all} To: lojban-list@lojban.org In-Reply-To: <925d17560606031350m4d5efdd9ve0b9a2bd74343376@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-archive-position: 11726 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: clifford-j@sbcglobal.net Precedence: bulk Reply-to: lojban-list@lojban.org X-list: lojban-list --- Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 6/3/06, John E Clifford > wrote: > > As you may recall, my suggestion mirrors the > > English for "individually" and "collectively" > (or > > "together"), attaching as convenient to sumti > or > > predicate place (so, I suppose that UI is > about > > the only selmaho that will work -- unless we > > invent a new one). > > In English those adverbs normally indicate how > the predicate > applies to the subject. For example: > > The men carried the pianos together. > > would normally mean that each piano was carried > by all the men, > not that each man carried all the pianos at > once. Is that what you > have in mind, that when the predicate is > tagged, it indicates how > it applies to the x1? Yeah, though not restricted to x1, of course. > > The point of using {lu'o} and > > the like is that they would have no use in > the > > mildly revised system and so could be used > for > > something else -- in this case something > related, > > even. > > There has been resistance to changing utterly > useless words, so > I don't expect a proposal to change something > not totally useless > like {lu'o} to succeed. I wouldn't especially > oppose it, but I know > others would. Yes, the accumulated detritus in Lojban is considerable. I don't really expect that my suggestion would be accepted (either the one for {lu'o} or the general idea), but I do have to offer the opportunity to straighten things up s bit. And there is always LoCCan. > > I think this would have a minimal effect > > on old text, since 1) {lu'o} and the like > have > > scarcely ever been used and 2) the old forms > are > > legitmate under the new dispensation and have > the > > same meaning (or what now corresponds to the > old > > meaning). These last two claims are > > impressionistic, so correct them if they are > > wrong. > > {lu'o} has seen some use, I don't know about > "scarcely", it is hard > to quantify. Some cmavo I would be pretty sure > have seen no use, > but I don't think {lu'o} is one of them. If > it's moved to UI, then the > old forms would change rather drastically > because UIs attach to > the preceding word and {lu'o} applies to the > sumti that follows. That > could be partly solved by putting it in BAhE > instead of in UI, but the > scope would still be wrong, because {lu'o} can > take any number of > connected sumti, whereas BAhE only takes the > immediately > following word. Nice point; thanks. So, some usage might go by the way (none in the corpus I keep in searchable form, but it is now a rather small portion of what is available). I always rather expected that the predication mode markers would have to be sui generis. To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.