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

[lojban-beginners] Re: du'e preti

ki'e rodo
I just have a few follow-up questions to ask about some of xorxes' answers. 

On Apr 15, 2008, at 10:17 AM, Jorge Llambías wrote:
On Mon, Apr 14, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com > wrote:
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.
Section 6.11 of the LRG states that "the meaning of a vocative phrase that is within a sentence is not affected by its position in the sentence," and it doesn't have any effect on the rest of the sentence (except on pro-<sumti>), so whether a vocative comes before or after a terminator shouldn't make any difference.
However, reading the first paragraph of that section again, I think it might actually mean that a vocative cannot take the place of a terminator and that if you were going to insert a terminator somewhere, following it with a vocative wouldn't make it elidable, as the <bridi> would continue uninterrupted after 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.
How authoritative is this PEG grammar? Section 19.13 of the LRG says that a <si> is needed for each word, with the quoted text counting as a single word.
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.
If I were to form such a <tanru> with "<cmaci>," which word should I form it with -- <girzu>, <terpoi>, or <selcmi>? "<girzu>" doesn't really seem like the best choice, given that mathematics already has things called "groups" which refer to something entirely different from the common meaning of the word. 

ki'emu'omi'e la'o gy. Minimiscience .gy.