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

Re: [lojban-beginners] oi bei





2014-09-25 0:04 GMT+04:00 TR NS <transfire@gmail.com>:


On Wednesday, September 24, 2014 2:59:21 PM UTC-4, Ian Johnson wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 11:26 AM, TR NS <tran...@gmail.com> wrote:

Considering the reasoning, it seems to me that the most concise solution would be to have two different cmavo for {be}. One that only takes a single sumti, and another that can take any number but has to be terminated. 

This would be harder to learn, and it would require an amount of forethought that isn't really worth the amount of word savings it would provide.

Also, {bei} can be very useful for terminator elision. Another artificial example:

{.i broda be lo nu brode lo nu brodi lo nu brodo lo nu brodo bei ko'a}

Writing that with {be*}, you would need:

{.i broda be* lo nu brode lo nu brodi lo nu brodo lo nu brodo kei kei kei kei ko'a}

which is both much more verbose and much more difficult to read.


Not so much difficult to read as it is to say b/c you have keep count of all those {nu}.

TR NS, if you feel that it would work for you, invent this cmavo and start using it!

It'd be also nice if you could define the syntax of this new cmavo in PEG but we all believe that it wouldn't be ambiguous syntactically so defining in PEG is not a must.

What doesn't work for others might work for you and then more people.
 
It's easy as long as there is a wa to close them all at once as you point out. But as it stands, conversely one has:

    {.i broda be lo nu brode bei lo nu brodi bei lo nu brodo bei lo nu brodo bei ko'a}

Which is quite verbose. And then what happens if anther {be} shows up?

    {.i broda be lo nu brode bei lo nu brodi be lo nu brodo bei lo nu brodo bei ko'a}
 
While it is convenient that closing a previous clause (of a different selma'o) can close all those in between, I don't think it should be a defacto substitute for actually having an explicit means of doing that, e.g. with the example:

    {.i broda be* lo nu brode lo nu brodi lo nu brodo lo nu brodo kei kei kei kei ko'a}

shouldn't there be something like {vau} but allows one to specify the cmavo. For the sake of discussion, let's call it {vau*}.

    {.i broda be* lo nu brode lo nu brodi lo nu brodo lo nu brodo vau* kei ko'a}

Actually I would prefer {vau* nu}, but in either case, it is much more explicit this way.

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

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