[lojban-beginners] Re: du'e preti

["Jorge Llambías" <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com> wrote:
> doi ba'o cilre lobypli:

a'o ro lobypli poi co'a cilre cu ca'o cilre

>  1. If all of the places of a <bridi> have been filled, and said <bridi> is
>     nested inside another <bridi> (e.g., in an abstraction), is it still
>     necessary to explicitly terminate the nested <bridi> if it is followed
> by
>     a <sumti> of the main <bridi>?

Yes, the formal grammar doesn't count arguments. You can add as
many as you like to a bridi, and once numbered places are all filled,
it's equivalent to adding them with {do'e}.

>  2. How should overlapping places be interpreted?  E.g., in "<fe ti klama fa
>     mi ta>," does <ta> occupy the second or third place of <klama>?  Is this
>     sentence even grammatically correct?

It's grammatical. I think the official rule is that {ta} goes in x3 there, i.e.
the first unfilled place after the {fa} place, but it's better to avoid setting
up such traps to the reader/listener.

>  3. When joining two <sumti> with <joi>, it doesn't actually seem necessary
> to
>     terminate the former one with <ku>.  The justification given in the LRG
>     (§14.14) only applies to poorly written parsers without look-ahead
>     capabilities, which yacc-generated parsers almost certainly are not.
>     Unless there exists a construct which can be either a <selbri> or a
>     <sumti> simultaneously, is there any good reason why <ku> should be
>     required here?

It's not required by the PEG parser. The old requirement is indeed a
consequence of limited lookahead, but the grammar was never fully
LALR(1) anyway, so it's a bit pointless.


>  4. Is it permissible to combine a ZAhO <cmavo> with other tense <cmavo> to
>     use as a single <sumti tcita>?

Yes, any compound tense allowed as a selbri tcita is also allowed as
a sumti tcita.

> If so, am I right in thinking that a
> ZAhO
>     <cmavo> used as a <sumti tcita> alone is grammatically equivalent to
> that
>     same <cmavo> being preceded by "<ca>"?  If not, elaborate on what it
> means
>     for such a compound <cmavo> to be used as a <sumti tcita>.

In my view, any tag used as a sumti tcita has the same meaning as when
used as a selbri tcita, but made more precise by the sumti. This is not,
however, the official take on ZAhOs.

>  5. Why can't an elidable terminator be elided when followed by a vocative
>     phrase (LRG, §6.11)?  As the meaning of a vocative is independent of its
>     location and has no real bearing on the meaning of the surrounding
>     <bridi>, what difference does it make whether or not the elidable
>     terminator is present?

A vocative, like all free indicators, is attached to the immediately preceding
word. Attaching it to a full structure closed by a terminator, or just to the
last word of the structure before the terminator may or may not make a
meaningful difference, depending on the specific case.

>  6. When a <sumti> has internal <sumti> and/or a relative clause attached to
>     it, does its terminating <ku> (if present) belong before or after the
>     internal <sumti> or clause?

{ku} will terminate the sumti that started last, so it will terminate
an internal
sumti rather than an external one if there is a choice.

{ku} is almost always elidable, and when it is not, using another terminator
will usually make it elidable and will be more clear than {ku}, in my opinion.

>  7. Can the terminator "<vau>" be applied to discursive <bridi> introduced
>     with "<sei>"?

No, {sei} is closed with a selbri. {vau} terminates the trailing sumti
of a bridi,
but {sei} only admits leading sumti, no trailing ones.

>  8. How do you state that someone said a string of non-grammatical words
> that
>     include "<le'u>" but not "<zo>" or "<zoi>"?

You can use, for example {lo'u ... le'u joi zo le'u joi lo'u ... le'u}.

Not really something that comes up often though, so it hardly deserves
a more elegant way to deal with it.

>  9. After uttering an empty ZOI or LOhU construct, if one were to erase it
>     with <si>s, would it be necessary to utter a <si> for the empty quoted
>     text?

The rules for "magic words" are not quite fully defined yet, but in the PEG
grammar a single {si} will erase the whole construct, including the ZOI or
LOhU, together with anything within it, empty or not.


>  10. What pro-<sumti> should be used to refer to the speaker and only a few
> of
>     many listeners?

{mi joi so'u do}, {mi joi so'i do}, {mi joi su'o do}, ...

>  11. Can <finti> be used to say that one invented a physical device (which
>     would seem to contrast with its other translations)?  If not, what word
>     should be used?  If yes, how can one distinguish invention of a physical
>     device from composition of literature, music, et cetera?

You can always use modifiers: {dacti finti}, {larcu finti}, ...

>  12. Does "<girzu>" suffice as a term for "unordered set" (or, at least, a
> set
>     that does not necessarily have an intrinsic order), or must we be
> content
>     with "<terpoi>" and "<selcmi>"?

If you are talking about mathematical sets, and want to be perfectly clear
about it, it is probably safer to throw in a {cmaci} in there. Otherwise the
word will not be restricted to sets in a purely mathematical sense. But
in a mathematical context that will normally be clear.

>  13. Regarding modals like "<ri'a>," "<mu'i>," "<ki'u>," & "<ni'i>," which
> one
>     is used for stating why a (non-human) animal did something?

I suppose it depends what the something is. If they eat because they are
hungry, that would be {mu'i}. If they fall because they tripped, that might
be {ri'a}, if you want to say that one particular animal will die because all
animals are mortal, that would be {ni'i}. If a parrot says a word because
it has been trained to say it, that might be {ki'u}.

> Which one
> is
>     used when the reason is an instinct or a primitive need?

Depending how you word it, it might be {mu'i} or {ki'u}. If you are
explaining why the animal did it, that need not be related to any
reasoning done by the animal, just by the speaker.

> What about
>     reflexes?  Which one is used for things which can be expressed as the
>     result of a personality trait?  What modal is used when stating that
>     someone did something because he or she was hypnotized?  Which one would
>     most likely be used if one was forced to do something or be killed?
> What
>     if a person was tricked into doing something?  I could probably think of
>     more situations, but this should be enough for now.

Most of them would be {ki'u}, since they involve explanations given by the
speaker of why someone did something.

>  14. I am quite certain that I once read somewhere that the spaces in Lojban
>     text are unnecessary and that words can be unambiguously determined from
>     the text without them; however, I cannot find where I read this (if
> ever),
>     and the issues raised in the next three questions seem to go against
> that
>     claim.  Hence, just to be clear, are the spaces in Lojbanic text
> optional
>     & unnecessary?  Do the claim that Lojban sounds can be broken up into
>     words in exactly one way and the audio-visual isomorphism of the
> language
>     together imply that written Lojban does not change when the spaces are
>     removed?  How does the answer to this interact with the below three
>     queries?

Spaces are optional as long as obligatory pauses and brivla stress are
marked in some other way. They are not optional when they are being used
as the only means of marking obligatory pauses or brivla stress.

Despite the common use of the catchphrase, there is no such thing as an
audio-visual isomorphism in Lojban. One visual presentation can correspond
to many equivalent audio presentations, and one audio presentation can
correspond to many equivalent visual presentations, so no true isomorphism
there.

What Lojban does have are unambiguous audio and visual modes
of presentation, but no "isomorphism" betweeen them.

>  15. According to the Lojban Reference Grammar, chapter 4, section 9, item
> 5,
>     any monosyllabic <cmavo> before a <brivla> must be followed by a pause,
>     yet this would require an inordinate amount of pauses to be inserted
> into
>     text.  By "pause," does the LRG mean a <denpa bu>, in which case why has
>     no one been following this rule, or does it mean a space, in which case
>     how does this interact with Lojban's claims of audio-visual isomorphism
>     and that sounds can be divided into words in only one way?

That applies to stressed cmavo, but no pause is required if the cmavo is
not stressed.

>  16. Section 17.4 of the LRG states that the spaces in <denpa bu> and <slaka
>     bu> are mandatory to avoid confusion with <fu'ivla>, yet the rules for
>     <fu'ivla> explicitly prohibit compounds of <gismu> & <cmavo>.  Why is
> the
>     former restriction there?

{denpabu}, pronounced with penultimate stress, is not a compound of
gismu and cmavo. There is no gismu stressed in its last syllable.

>  17. If the spaces are omitted from a text, how can one tell where a
> <fu'ivla>
>     ends?  For example, how do you know that "<cidjrspageti>" is entirely
> one
>     <fu'ivla> and not, say, "<ci djrspa ge ti>"?

{djrspa} is not a word, but in order to get {cidjrspa ge ti} the first syllable
has to be stressed, while in {cidjrspageti} the first syllable is not stressed.

>  18. When the LRG states that all <brivla> are emphasised on the penultimate
>     syllable, is it merely repeating a consequence of the pronunciation
> rules,
>     or is it indirectly requiring that the penultimate syllable of a
> <brivla>
>     not contain a syllabic consonant or "y"?  If the former, wouldn't it be
>     simpler for it to just state that <brivla> must have at least two
>     syllables?

It must contain at least two non-y syllables, with the penultimate stressed.

>  19. Exactly what changes to the language have been made since the release
> of
>     *The Complete Lojban Language*/the Lojban Reference Grammar?  Does there
>     exist a completely up-to-date compilation of all of the rules of Lojban
>     grammar (that is at least more user-friendly than that horrendous tiki)?

No changes have been made officially, and any unofficial ones are still
under consideration, but you probably won't notice them anyway since
they concern mainly non-mainstream stuff.

mu'o mi'e xorxes