From lojban+bncCMHEmaCOBhCz-Z7yBBoEIO18RQ@googlegroups.com Sun Aug 14 05:17:05 2011 Received: from mail-yi0-f61.google.com ([209.85.218.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QsZcj-0007DD-Ik; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:17:04 -0700 Received: by yie36 with SMTP id 36sf7416300yie.16 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:54 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; 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:x-google-group-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=bA7lIO1uXczi53F/8ugzuIpZSJ/2RSP6w4E2gg9L/58=; b=gjKAtrzYEFjKNRJlBzBvaDcrjMZMxmdOV7UqexBPaNJiXpIfz953ZJ3YHF8i8PMv+G yaqeDFMPXheic/OUvIi6SNO010f3WtAIQzDV3aMyX8l3PXw3YsRf2rn5T+vKB7hXhlZM z5KsZh4BVNRfBUHOySem4aWShm2AwuIZsneFw= Received: by 10.236.80.67 with SMTP id j43mr1039234yhe.10.1313324211150; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:51 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.90.6.16 with SMTP id 16ls16947662agf.6.gmail; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.116.194 with SMTP id g42mr7109557yhh.3.1313324209627; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.236.116.194 with SMTP id g42mr7109555yhh.3.1313324209611; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com (mail-pz0-f47.google.com [209.85.210.47]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si10253657pbb.1.2011.08.14.05.16.48 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.210.47; Received: by pzk2 with SMTP id 2so5931682pzk.20 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.147.12 with SMTP id u12mr289141wfd.345.1313324208247; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.142.126.21 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 05:16:48 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201108140745.04360.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201108140745.04360.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:16:48 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "gi" in place of "zi'e" From: Jonathan Jones To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@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: X-Google-Group-Id: 1004133512417 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=000e0cd240b4e852bd04aa761ed5 --000e0cd240b4e852bd04aa761ed5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 .xorxes. wrote a proposal regarding connectives as a whole, specifically about a means to reduce the quantity thereof. Does it address zi'e? On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Sunday 14 August 2011 06:40:11 tijlan wrote: > > Multiple relative clauses (NOI) / phrases (GOI) can be joined up, > > officially by "zi'e": > > > > da poi [ broda ] zi'e noi [ brode ] > > da poi [ broda ] zi'e pe [ de ] > > > > I wonder if "gi" could substitute for that joiner: > > > > da poi [ broda ] gi noi [ brode ] > > da poi [ broda ] gi pe [ de ] > > Semantically, this doesn't make sense. "zi'e" is a logical and of the zihek > class; there is no logical or, nxor, one-side-irrelevant, or question in > the > class. "zi'o" is occupied by a pseudo-pronoun that deletes a place; the > others are available. I think that they should be allocated to > conjunctions, > and for the nxor conjunction we can use "zi'oi". Then we need a word so > that > non-logical conjunctions can be used with relative clauses. > > On the other hand, "zi'e" was coined before we started using PEG. It's > likely > that the word was deemed necessary because of the limitations of LALR1. PEG > has no problem seeing that "noi" or "pe" follows, so one of the other > classes > of conjunctions should be usable in PEG. In LALR1 we could try requiring > that > the first relative clause or phrase be terminated, just as article phrases > need to be terminated with "ku" before JOI. > > Pierre > -- > li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du > li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci > > -- > 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. > > -- mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) -- 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. --000e0cd240b4e852bd04aa761ed5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable .xorxes. wrote a proposal regarding connectives as a whole, specifically ab= out a means to reduce the quantity thereof. Does it address zi'e?
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 5:45 AM, Pierre Abbat = <phma@phma.optus= .nu> wrote:
On Sunday 14 August 2011 = 06:40:11 tijlan wrote:
> Multiple relative clauses (NOI) / phrases (GOI) can be joined up,
> officially by "zi'e":
>
> =A0 da poi [ broda ] zi'e noi [ brode ]
> =A0 da poi [ broda ] zi'e pe [ de ]
>
> I wonder if "gi" could substitute for that joiner:
>
> =A0 da poi [ broda ] gi noi [ brode ]
> =A0 da poi [ broda ] gi pe [ de ]

Semantically, this doesn't make sense. "zi'e" is a = logical and of the zihek
class; there is no logical or, nxor, one-side-irrelevant, or question in th= e
class. "zi'o" is occupied by a pseudo-pronoun that deletes a = place; the
others are available. I think that they should be allocated to conjunctions= ,
and for the nxor conjunction we can use "zi'oi". Then we need= a word so that
non-logical conjunctions can be used with relative clauses.

On the other hand, "zi'e" was coined before we started using = PEG. It's likely
that the word was deemed necessary because of the limitations of LALR1. PEG=
has no problem seeing that "noi" or "pe" follows, so on= e of the other classes
of conjunctions should be usable in PEG. In LALR1 we could try requiring th= at
the first relative clause or phrase be terminated, just as article phrases<= br> need to be terminated with "ku" before JOI.

Pierre
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

--
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@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojba= n?hl=3Den.




--
mu'o mi= 'e .aionys.

.i.e'ucai ko cmima lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.l= uk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. = :D )

--
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.
--000e0cd240b4e852bd04aa761ed5--