[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [bpfk] Proposal: sumti must always be tagged with "tag" even if it's elidible.



On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 9:02 PM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
What does the SOI term mean? Is there a new proposed meaning for "soi"?
Is it something like "lo poi'i"?

 See: http://mw.lojban.org/index.php?title=new_soi

ua je'e .i'e .i simlu lo ka xamgu .i simsa lo'u se kai lo ka le'u 

BTW, are there any plans to get rid of SA, or are people still in love
with it? It makes the grammar so much harder to read.

 Almost all uses of {sa} are in {sa .i}, so maybe we could simplify {sa} by making it just remove the current sentence entirely.

Even that would have its complications, but it would be better than the pehe_sa's and cehe-sa's I'm seeing now. 

Another option would be to make SA+sentence or SA+term or maybe SA+word a free modifier (I'm not sure how exactly that would play out though).

That wouldn't work to "fix" broken sentences, which seems to be one of its main uses.

In any case, I agree that SA adds a lot of annoying complexity to the grammar (even though it's kind of a nice mechanism to have).

The original SA-"any selma'o" was unwieldly because of the huge number of selma'o that Lojban has, but at least in some sense was not arbitrary. The current version requires knowing which constructs are SA-erasable and which are not, which seems like a fairly arbitrary collection. Maybe I'm just too prejudiced against it, but I really don't like it.

mu'o mi'e xorxes 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "BPFK" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.