From lojban+bncCJ2UzZHuDRDBnZ_yBBoE2zs0Gg@googlegroups.com Sun Aug 14 06:34:07 2011 Received: from mail-qy0-f189.google.com ([209.85.216.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QsapH-0004az-TC; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:34:06 -0700 Received: by qyk33 with SMTP id 33sf5122162qyk.16 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:57 -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 :content-transfer-encoding; bh=POtDVTt708orRyZlpMMjLEB17nykOQSk6ukrparPXk0=; b=EKhISziS/WDEPM8RROjrpnczOcy8DzbdQaLQzuB9d1z01wYBgIrcytHYmSnN8u1PUt LtzsgmsaMCF3CB3Km2As+mzZkG8oAipN1dKvg2vFd68CDb5tE2w62nkQ1FTkrv2I7bxZ ODSBoLP/ufbg6NUbXuC4DaK0zaBIVEaTTf0tM= Received: by 10.224.8.211 with SMTP id i19mr341145qai.22.1313328833345; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.224.180.200 with SMTP id bv8ls419008qab.2.gmail; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.206.67 with SMTP id ft3mr2352910qab.12.1313328832474; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.224.206.67 with SMTP id ft3mr2352909qab.12.1313328832465; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vw0-f50.google.com (mail-vw0-f50.google.com [209.85.212.50]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id gz6si3244994qcb.3.2011.08.14.06.33.52 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.50 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.212.50; Received: by vws14 with SMTP id 14so3758322vws.9 for ; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.52.26.210 with SMTP id n18mr2609539vdg.500.1313328832150; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.52.101.170 with HTTP; Sun, 14 Aug 2011 06:33:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201108140745.04360.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201108140745.04360.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2011 10:33:52 -0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "gi" in place of "zi'e" From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Jorge_Llamb=EDas?= To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: jjllambias@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jjllambias@gmail.com designates 209.85.212.50 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=jjllambias@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: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 8:45 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": >> >> =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 zih= ek > class; there is no logical or, nxor, one-side-irrelevant, or question in = the > class. Originally there was the whole zihek series, but all except "zi'e" were eliminated. (The new meaning of "zi'o" was a latter addition.) > On the other hand, "zi'e" was coined before we started using PEG. It's li= kely > that the word was deemed necessary because of the limitations of LALR1. P= EG > has no problem seeing that "noi" or "pe" follows, so one of the other cla= sses > of conjunctions should be usable in PEG. Yes, "relative-clauses <- relative-clause (jek relative-clause)*" makes more sense than "relative-clauses <- relative-clause (gik relative-clause)*" since we could also have "gek relative-clause gik relative-clause". mu'o mi'e xorxes --=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.