From lojban+bncCNf8pM-bDBCB5qPyBBoEJjTgJA@googlegroups.com Mon Aug 15 03:21:03 2011 Received: from mail-gw0-f61.google.com ([74.125.83.61]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1QsuHz-0004LT-H2; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:21:02 -0700 Received: by gwb11 with SMTP id 11sf8699500gwb.16 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:52 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:sender: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 :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=ryFMIvhUuro1qoIHYerjQDFRiNbaY8yhVUj44AU29dE=; b=qPnNjhZnl+ulFgG12SnhaeSU7y/vH+gLyQOk5SRO74wissU5FW6jKvdXHXm+jJUZdw p/XGUB6iKSWyT7suw6oXusd/FsUECNaDMjYK16OTccjWI9TRd5b+LaZdbicetCh9i182 oEUgGNVshnrBadJA4b63K8c2TfUaqrcNUu5/c= Received: by 10.236.80.67 with SMTP id j43mr1327095yhe.10.1313403649114; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.73.132 with SMTP id q4ls1486921ibj.0.gmail; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.135.73 with SMTP id if9mr4451595icc.27.1313403648045; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.43.135.73 with SMTP id if9mr4451594icc.27.1313403648036; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-qw0-f49.google.com (mail-qw0-f49.google.com [209.85.216.49]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id kr11si351431pbb.1.2011.08.15.03.20.47 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.49; Received: by qwi2 with SMTP id 2so2855319qwi.36 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:47 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.29.9 with SMTP id o9mr2352565qcc.265.1313403646766; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:46 -0700 (PDT) Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.229.227.149 with HTTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2011 03:20:46 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <201108140745.04360.phma@phma.optus.nu> References: <201108140745.04360.phma@phma.optus.nu> Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2011 11:20:46 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [lojban] "gi" in place of "zi'e" From: tijlan To: lojban@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: paskios@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of paskios@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.49 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=paskios@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: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 14 August 2011 12:45, 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. So, "zi'enai" would mean "jenai" and not "non-zi'e" (whatever that could me= an)? 2011/8/14 Jorge Llamb=EDas : >> On the other hand, "zi'e" was coined before we started using PEG. It's l= ikely >> 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 cl= asses >> 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". The other ziheks were eliminated because ... they were deemed unnecessary, I suppose. All "GOI sumti" except perhaps "goi sumti" can be converted to "NOI selbri sumti", and of course multiple selbri can be coordinated by jek etc. within one clause started by the same NOI. Then it may be said that a joiner for multiple clauses is most grammatically wanted when we want different NOI for each clause. That is when we want to have the clauses differently as veridical non-restrictive (noi) or veridical restrictive (poi) or non-veridical restrictive (voi). In other words, however, if we could indicate those differences through other (existing or non-existing) discrete cmavo, there would be no absolute need for different NOI and then for "zi'e" either, I guess. (Such semantically discrete and perhaps primitive cmavo for veridicality and restrictiveness would also make "le/lei/le'e" redundant and even help disambiguate our expressions for the purpose of which we traditionally use those gadri, e.g. "le cribe" as "a particular population of lo cribe" [restrictive] and "what I subjectively consider to be a bear" [non-veridical]".) mu'o --=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.