From lojban+bncCJXwn4e6DRDhwZXnBBoExZzssw@googlegroups.com Thu Nov 18 09:22:58 2010 Received: from mail-fx0-f61.google.com ([209.85.161.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PJ8CD-0007LD-Jt; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:57 -0800 Received: by fxm16 with SMTP id 16sf282935fxm.16 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:47 -0800 (PST) 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:received:mime-version:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject: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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=6sWirAHhx5rBPcPKcWEJ9KmIHFrzd4C15B56Wqzzrzk=; b=1qfuW71WuIpCfos5l+OVyJhcfMM69crobdS8753eBlf55fXribGcBK22UD5mC3o/l4 pdaiwlPB3lpFhgl2NoV9D3TpLWRKhImX/5Q2SzRbRukqMS8lGHsWz72AXIJ99ide4i6F HDOJ6scrczyJBuD2n81cWc95tzK+oSQVJd1O0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject: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:content-transfer-encoding; b=691kro+dr/IbjMW/P4Xo2LF6a8sruBu/g7ViRIwTcKpcCv9I0Wt5OKXJBK7jSJdsEM 8q0SN8pgjZJoQJL7qtTAZ7Su+70zB/K3zwnuCLu5YUStFqtdCZhnjIanTNYYsXyullbk sn3U65tig2ZIX/FTkNIaSX6CNtIkyYpyc/YJU= Received: by 10.223.102.143 with SMTP id g15mr55278fao.32.1290100961428; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:41 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.204.49.147 with SMTP id v19ls870506bkf.1.p; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.60.84 with SMTP id o20mr81968bkh.19.1290100960185; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:40 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.60.84 with SMTP id o20mr81967bkh.19.1290100960090; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-fx0-f54.google.com (mail-fx0-f54.google.com [209.85.161.54]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j16si95539bkd.6.2010.11.18.09.22.38; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:39 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of adamlopresto@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.54 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.161.54; Received: by fxm19 with SMTP id 19so1893226fxm.41 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:38 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.223.122.201 with SMTP id m9mr840164far.79.1290100958635; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:38 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.223.119.10 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 09:22:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Adam Lopresto Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:22:18 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] {ziltau} vs {taurpau} To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: adamlopresto@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of adamlopresto@gmail.com designates 209.85.161.54 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=adamlopresto@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 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable The idea, in fact, was not {tanru be zi'o bei zi'o}, but {se tanru be zi'o bei zi'o} (or {te tanru be zi'o bei zi'o} (maybe even with an implicit {ka'e}). That is, a tanru-unit is the sort of thing that can be a seltau or a tertau, it isn't necessarily a tanru itself, and it isn't necessarily actually *used* in a tanru. zi'o-ing out the x1 may be unusual, but it has precedent ({zilcmi}, for instance). 2010/11/18 Jorge Llamb=EDas : > On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Remo Dentato wrote= : >> >> I remember that one of the arguement was that {ziltau} was the term >> used in the grammar but I couldn't find it in the BNF (neither in the >> PEG) grammar. > > The grammar uses "tanru-unit". > >> On the other hand, {taurpau} suggested by Pierre seems a very sensible l= ujvo. >> >> Could we all get to an agreement? > > The only problem (with both "tanru-unit" and "taurpau") is that the > construct in question need not be part of any tanru, it could be a > selbri all by itself. It may be part of a tanru, but need not be. > > The advantage of "ziltau" (construed as "tanru be zi'o bei zi'o") is > that it removes any idea of modifiers and modificands, which is not > really part of the essence of a tanru-unit. The disadvantage is that > it can be quite confusing. > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > > -- > 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@googlegr= oups.com. > For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojb= an?hl=3Den. > > --=20 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@googlegrou= ps.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban= ?hl=3Den.