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

Re: [bpfk] Improvements to fragments in ilmentufa parser


On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 6:43 AM, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

 I'm actually a big fan of fragments; I use {to be} and {to noi} a lot,

Yes, I forgot about fragments within to-toi, I have used many of those too. They still make me uncomfortable though. Something like fu'e-fu'o would seem to make more sense for that kind of thing.
 
and it's also nice when you want to add onto someone else's sentence, e.g.

A: mi viska lo pendo
B: be ma
A: la .djan.

Could B say "be ma" if A had said "mi viska lo pendo ku"? or "mi viska lo pendo vau"?

Even fragment {na} is sort of semi-common as a slang thing; in the experimental grammar it was extended to allow multiple NA in a row as a fragment as well.

If it was tanru-unit that was elidable, as gleki is suggesting, this would be just a case of "na [COhE]". 

I actually frequently miss a method to use a fragmental ?{to JOI SUMTI toi}, but sadly it would clash with {.i joi}, so I'm stuck with {to ri JOI SUMTI toi), which doesn't always work.

It would work with a fu'e-fu'o type parenthetical, instead of a to-toi type.
 
I find fragments very useful for spontaneous human speech.

I don't doubt that human speech is full of "broken sentences". I just don't like much the way "fragment" is implemented in Lojban's grammar. 

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.