From lojban+bncCKH6vKekGBC0rqrkBBoERPfIaw@googlegroups.com Fri Sep 10 13:38:29 2010 Received: from mail-wy0-f189.google.com ([74.125.82.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1OuAMa-0006Oo-W7; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:28 -0700 Received: by wyb35 with SMTP id 35sf643392wyb.16 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=b+jI0oFL5n7TfznQT5tRobjU5ycWY3/KdA5qxNQvY9Q=; b=ZByp6VJY0VUvb9zpHOMp2GvppR3WKMyRE7yREPWtsVS0QVXQIni1QPnxibj5vjjGPJ SsRb8O1yreAkGQeK3vxe0YhIdMZqcQyN9zNA/kZ+wnHcIVSHGnbCOxTn+0OjtuZvcV/2 jivD8MOhkdlxXMAeFhB/hOEszGn0SWS+hcrnA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=kLng6PBWHtfgDiXBom4J964yT+dp+mRZjtpGS4Fbn2bjWjpkwko+RvZz48ZRkLF6zC 4j1aI0WJPQ2ktwaHvZrI/+aIOPvciOCBnY1UgCby+0BM/1FulZojSxVXDdlBPUMIcH1U C7tC/b+oZRaklnQyEPdfAkk6DoTPPRSzTQw/8= Received: by 10.216.145.97 with SMTP id o75mr218148wej.1.1284151092338; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:12 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.14.41.160 with SMTP id h32ls509984eeb.5.p; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.29.15 with SMTP id h15mr79546eea.8.1284151091372; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.14.29.15 with SMTP id h15mr79545eea.8.1284151091277; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:11 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ey0-f170.google.com (mail-ey0-f170.google.com [209.85.215.170]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id w43si3108137eeh.3.2010.09.10.13.38.10; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:10 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of fagricipni@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.215.170; Received: by mail-ey0-f170.google.com with SMTP id 24so3184954eyg.1 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:10 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.185.72 with SMTP id t50mr1399302wem.77.1284151089954; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.63.131 with HTTP; Fri, 10 Sep 2010 13:38:09 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20100910011141.GS20652@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2010 16:38:09 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] Teaching methods, especially WRT terminators, and validation thereof From: "H. Felton" To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: fagricipni@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of fagricipni@gmail.com designates 209.85.215.170 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=fagricipni@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 9/10/10, Luke Bergen wrote: > That's unfortunate. I would read {la .cip. noi gerku cu batci lo mrinau} as > "that which is named named 'sheep' (which is a dog) bit the mailman" not > "that which is named 'sheep (which is a dog)' bit the mailman". That is, I > would assume that the elided [ku] would go between {la .cip.} and {noi > gerku}. From what you're saying it sounds like the elided [ku] would go > between {noi gerku} and {cu batci}. yuck I'm surprised; I didn't think that expressions like the one I made up from The Draft Reference Grammar would actually have any real utility, but you found one. ("sheepdog", I like that pun.) I have to agree with you that expressions with meanings of the form "that which is named 'sheep' (which is a dog) bit the mailman" are likely to be more generally useful than ones like "that which is named 'sheep (which is a dog)' bit the mailman"; nevertheless, my understanding of the parsing rules is that "la .cip. noi gerku cu batci lo mrinau" should be interpreted as meaning the second; you need to add that single "ku" to get the first interpretation, which is more likely what you meant to express. If the first is what is actually meant by the expression without the "ku", then I need to be told what rule makes that the unambiguously-correct parsing; I don't know if it *should* be -- it could be argued that a rule that forces the first interpretation for the expression without the "ku" eliminates the possibility of expressing the second meaning at all, while requiring the insertion of 1 "ku" to get the second interpretation does not make expressing that meaning very much harder --; but if there is a rule that means that it is, I will use the language as it *is*, rather than trying to "improve" it in that respect. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group. To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.