From lojban+bncCO2dsrjkARDtt5LpBBoE5rT5Pg@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 05 08:27:39 2011 Received: from mail-vw0-f61.google.com ([209.85.212.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PaWD0-0000BK-Vv; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:27:38 -0800 Received: by vws1 with SMTP id 1sf8701887vws.16 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:27:29 -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:message-id:date:from :user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=zRsMjcYwSQ94lh/vA7MiIgRtEp0kwr908IgOF13F7Bw=; b=EhS+RANTFUkZc56HpyGfqC2/OZO8+RQio/1Q+Sm6jv4fUtuu9AfDIoPL5E6GnSM1LB wgu1r1bsbncs36yqLyHTSPz3iUTkw+YlykO3EXZYC1qcwaIRdLjoBM/7kf/hTg25Uy9C yaV4zJ5gzQaScQxlknERjJv6F5jJS/JRwEneE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:message-id:date:from:user-agent :mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-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=ipNZQiLvE33Ots3VWZsJ9hWNI8l7nWL0CkEV2gI3NgecniuKEIUYg7YcdX5HWKH9tm iq0eXOBI928byAEeX/VSg4EI6kARR8yD1r6qNwHz4KUGxh8qBcwwvQZ/kgfzk74kimqE 7gNat1IeWEhuLFBijlY3HJvTKA6KDq98v955o= Received: by 10.220.193.205 with SMTP id dv13mr743669vcb.53.1294244845639; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:27:25 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.220.109.143 with SMTP id j15ls601012vcp.1.p; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:27:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.201.77 with SMTP id ez13mr2271870vcb.9.1294244844556; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:27:24 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.201.77 with SMTP id ez13mr2271868vcb.9.1294244844518; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:27:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from pi.meson.org (pi.meson.org [96.56.207.26]) by gmr-mx.google.com with SMTP id m31si1406815vcr.1.2011.01.05.08.27.24; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:27:24 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 96.56.207.26 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mark@kli.org) client-ip=96.56.207.26; Received: (qmail 32219 invoked from network); 5 Jan 2011 16:27:23 -0000 Received: from nagas.meson.org (192.168.1.101) by pi.meson.org with SMTP; 5 Jan 2011 16:27:23 -0000 Message-ID: <4D249BEB.9070104@kli.org> Date: Wed, 05 Jan 2011 11:27:23 -0500 From: "Mark E. Shoulson" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: lojban@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] tanru ordering and a cmavo proposal References: In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 96.56.207.26 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of mark@kli.org) smtp.mail=mark@kli.org 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; format=flowed On 01/05/2011 09:47 AM, Ian Johnson wrote: > This proposal is about {co}. There are basically two orders of seltau, > tertau, sumti-of-seltau, and sumti-of-tertau that are allowed. These are: > [ST] S SS T ST. No {co} needed. > [ST] T ST S SS. {co} needed. > > The following case came up on IRC last night and is not possible at > the moment: > [ST] T S SS ST > The problem is that once you use {co}, any sumti you throw out there > afterwards are SS automatically. In essence this is basically like > being trapped in a NU, where all the sumti you say get sucked up into > the NU until {kei} or something that forces it like {cu} comes up. > Accordingly, why should {co} not have a terminator? Have a terminator > like {co'ai}, and then you have equivalences like: > > ko'a broda co brode ko'e ko'i co'ai ko'o == ko'a brode be ko'e bei > broda ko'i > > Formally: > Proposal: {co'ai}. Terminator for {co}. When supplied, sumti that > follow it are considered to be sumti of the tertau, rather than sumti > of the seltau. I don't think it's necessary, any more than we need something in a stream of sumti that signals "OK, the following sumti are arguments to the seltau, not the tertau." The whole point of {co} is that at least as far as following sumti are concerned, the tanru has *become* reversed, and now the seltau is the head. If you wanted trailing sumti on the tertau, you should have attached them with {be}/{bei} before the {co}. ~mark -- 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.