From lojban+bncCML0xpmUARCC0JTpBBoEBUw8gw@googlegroups.com Wed Jan 05 18:25:21 2011 Received: from mail-px0-f189.google.com ([209.85.212.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1PafXR-0007zQ-Rl; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:21 -0800 Received: by pxi19 with SMTP id 19sf6394523pxi.16 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:12 -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: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=hR9KGFJtJOUfn66oM7wZMxtT1batf6nphm0E77mTzcM=; b=Tl0PJdG580km1T75okPIeV7JB51sxGWIaNqjh9wnkJif2TDKDAlN7F0Vcy5Te2cDkw 8oHgaF3y3B/gJAtcyTJA4E4gg/29gJdtYj2//2cFV1OS65rGvevMlTJwSIuXaxGOi++E nAoBlqB6Q2GsjWA2RpPYqjNDyl4YMMnb7wV7c= 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=ouzSKWuaaA8eeUG2BKgVC348OLGAzW7LA8ywjbtiqDBlbxfhiRhYJpnlvuOq3EM6zu ZeWDlCHduxXdLsYiFoc26iZDHaGQBIOeaXgpTGbG7NOVp6n0bhuh60GsSCuwid2z7w1n YDLtqgHxOdYHWEa/l98P/cmC3N+a1hdeH2C+Y= Received: by 10.143.26.28 with SMTP id d28mr35032wfj.0.1294280706887; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:06 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.142.249.41 with SMTP id w41ls28085195wfh.1.p; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:06 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.241.12 with SMTP id o12mr291774wfh.47.1294280705971; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.241.12 with SMTP id o12mr291773wfh.47.1294280705935; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:05 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com (mail-pw0-f45.google.com [209.85.160.45]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id m3si360453wfl.1.2011.01.05.18.25.04; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:04 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.45 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.160.45; Received: by pwj6 with SMTP id 6so2372206pwj.32 for ; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.12.21 with SMTP id 21mr282783wfl.430.1294280704822; Wed, 05 Jan 2011 18:25:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.142.103.17 with HTTP; Wed, 5 Jan 2011 18:25:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <4D249BEB.9070104@kli.org> References: <4D249BEB.9070104@kli.org> Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2011 21:25:04 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] tanru ordering and a cmavo proposal From: Ian Johnson To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: blindbravado@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of blindbravado@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.45 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=blindbravado@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=000e0cd24370a68fc10499243508 --000e0cd24370a68fc10499243508 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Why should you have to do that? Under that argument, if you talk in the order that you think, and the order that you think is T S SS ST, you wind up with like: broda co brode ko'a si si si be ko'e co brode ko'a which is just horrible, and would be pretty much completely unintelligible in speech. True, {co'ai} doesn't allow you to say anything new, but it does allow you to say old things in a new way. In addition, I'd go so far as to say that the T S SS ST order is in some sense the one that makes the most sense. You start out with a general relation T, you refine it with S, you refine it further with SS, then you describe what's actually being related. mu'o mi'e .latros. On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 11:27 AM, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > 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. > > -- 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. --000e0cd24370a68fc10499243508 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Why should you have to do that? Under that argument, if you talk in the ord= er that you think, and the order that you think is T S SS ST, you wind up w= ith like:
broda co brode ko'a si si si be ko'e co brode ko'a=
which is just horrible, and would be pretty much completely unintelligible = in speech.

True, {co'ai} doesn't allow you to say anything = new, but it does allow you to say old things in a new way. In addition, I&#= 39;d go so far as to say that the T S SS ST order is in some sense the one = that makes the most sense. You start out with a general relation T, you ref= ine it with S, you refine it further with SS, then you describe what's = actually being related.

mu'o mi'e .latros.
On Wed, Jan 5,= 2011 at 11:27 AM, Mark E. Shoulson <mark@kli.org> wrote:
On 01/05/2011 09:47 AM, Ian Johnson wrote:
This proposal is about {co}. There are basically two orders of seltau, tert= au, 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 mom= ent:
[ST] T S SS ST
The problem is that once you use {co}, any sumti you throw out there afterw= ards 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 h= ave equivalences like:

ko'a broda co brode ko'e ko'i co'ai ko'o =3D=3D ko'= a brode be ko'e bei broda ko'i

Formally:
Proposal: {co'ai}. Terminator for {co}. When supplied, sumti that follo= w it are considered to be sumti of the tertau, rather than sumti of the sel= tau.

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." =A0The whole point of {co} is that at le= ast as far as following sumti are concerned, the tanru has *become* reverse= d, and now the seltau is the head. =A0If you wanted trailing sumti on the t= ertau, you should have attached them with {be}/{bei} before the {co}.

~mark

--
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.
--000e0cd24370a68fc10499243508--