From lojban+bncCMqBsa7nERC5_5jqBBoEjkzr4w@googlegroups.com Sun Jan 30 20:51:20 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PjljR-0006bz-Hg; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:20 -0800 Received: by yia27 with SMTP id 27sf3394627yia.16 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:11 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature: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; bh=128+30ASb/DUZSr123cxEbcw3yX10uK4OXhg1m5WWbk=; b=SQxflifPfhQxxv4N0jw1JfXo1bxAkdjz7npVmsqTDO8FojUzkBB8MkU71ACVYFxkbF VLbr1N2bll+mskdJaBp8vkkY+f7Y8MEyfB6dI0Oil7t8SljAYXZ3sqXn7nJpnQwcdlRb /EqRPmWwxO4E3ygt40ell8yEVMI9QwImaZlaY= 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; b=T/YRmRE1nJmTnABAHbiN/E+GbFUa6XCovrMZbF8P7+lv36LqbN1KWSxsrTSGsMpymf Hh+drpw6qawcc19BTrDIREO2f/i1trlqnQY8Z85Iio8TtYHk0n4eikEm6hs59rD6QOEX 8xaoaYLDsInY9K+08JuPYMOIkDwl2iequFY6M= Received: by 10.236.109.12 with SMTP id r12mr420803yhg.4.1296449465882; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:05 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.200.3 with SMTP id eu3ls5127757ibb.1.p; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.39.73 with SMTP id f9mr2763346ibe.17.1296449465028; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.39.73 with SMTP id f9mr2763345ibe.17.1296449464994; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:04 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-iy0-f175.google.com (mail-iy0-f175.google.com [209.85.210.175]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id cu19si4929184ibb.5.2011.01.30.20.51.03 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:03 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of oges007@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.175; Received: by iyj18 with SMTP id 18so4814184iyj.20 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:03 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.35.195 with SMTP id q3mr6049228ibd.186.1296449463797; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:51:03 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.231.25.132 with HTTP; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:50:33 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: From: Ross Ogilvie Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2011 15:50:33 +1100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] VAU CEI To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: oges007@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of oges007@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.175 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=oges007@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: multipart/alternative; boundary=0022152d6cb5c248d2049b1d299f --0022152d6cb5c248d2049b1d299f Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I would note that the second example you gave is already gramatical, but it assigns that particular nu construction to { brode }. But I agree with your reasoning that VAU CEI could be useful. mu'o mi'e ros On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Ian Johnson wrote: > {cei} is sorta hard to use. You have to realize that you're going to hold > basically your entire bridi (unless you override the sumti later) in a > variable, and you have to do that right as you say the selbri, or the > grammatical opportunity goes away. In some sense the way {cei} works now is > like a forethought connective. I'm proposing that it have an afterthought > counterpart; that is, that VAU CEI become grammatical, and that it do pretty > much what you expect: > ko'a broda ko'e ko'i vau cei brode == ko'a broda cei brode ko'e ko'i. > > To some extent you can work around this already, like: > ko'a broda ko'e ko'i .i go'i cei broda .i ko'o broda ... > > But it does not allow you to do an equivalent of: > .i lo nu ko'a broda ko'e ko'i vau cei brode cu brodi .i ko'o brode ... > > In principle I suppose this could be a cmavo unto itself, but I don't > really see why. > > Any thoughts? > > mu'o mi'e .latros. > > -- > 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. > -- 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. --0022152d6cb5c248d2049b1d299f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I would note that the second example you gave is already gramatical, but it= assigns that particular nu construction to { brode }.

But I agree w= ith your reasoning that VAU CEI could be useful.

mu'o mi'e r= os

On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Ian Johnson= <blindbrava= do@gmail.com> wrote:
{cei} is sorta hard to use. You have to realize that you're going to ho= ld basically your entire bridi (unless you override the sumti later) in a v= ariable, and you have to do that right as you say the selbri, or the gramma= tical opportunity goes away. In some sense the way {cei} works now is like = a forethought connective. I'm proposing that it have an afterthought co= unterpart; that is, that VAU CEI become grammatical, and that it do pretty = much what you expect:
ko'a broda ko'e ko'i vau cei brode =3D=3D ko'a broda cei br= ode ko'e ko'i.

To some extent you can work around this alre= ady, like:
ko'a broda ko'e ko'i .i go'i cei broda .i ko&= #39;o broda ...

But it does not allow you to do an equivalent of:
.i lo nu ko'a = broda ko'e ko'i vau cei brode cu brodi .i ko'o brode ...
In principle I suppose this could be a cmavo unto itself, but I don't = really see why.

Any thoughts?

mu'o mi'e .latros.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;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/lojba= n?hl=3Den.

--
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.
--0022152d6cb5c248d2049b1d299f--