Re: [lojban] Re: ji'i

[Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com>]

On 8/8/05, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ahh. In CLL example 14.16.1 (if it can be applied to quantity as well
> as location intervals), it would seem that the intended sense of {pa
> ji'i re roi} can be captured either by {pa bi'i re roi}, or,
> /slightly/ more explicitly, {ji'i pa bi'i re roi}.

I see two problems with this:

1) It is ungrammatical.
2) It would have a different meaning.

(1) may be fixable if the reason it is ungrammatical has to 
do with the old LALR(1) restriction on the grammar. This would 
require a grammar change.

(2) is more problematic. As I understand it, and also according
to the examples given here:
<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK%20Section%3A%20Intervals>,
{bi'i} gives an interval, not a value within an interval. 
(Admittedly the CLL example you cite seems to take the 
value within an interval position. Hopefully the BPFK will
clear that up.)

Even if all that could be fixed somehow, putting extraneous
things like {ji'i} between the digits of a number is very 
distracting, so the canonical use of {ji'i} would be bad on
its own, whether or not there is a competing interpretation.  
Since the only way to tell what value a digit has in in a 
number in Lojban is by its position, it is important that its 
position is easily and immediately identified. {ki'o} helps to 
do this by grouping the digits in threes. Perhaps a pattern 
of usage will develop, say stressing the tens and not 
stressing the hundreds and units for example, so that 
numbers can be easily understood. But if a {ji'i}
can crop up surreptitiously anywhere between them, this 
pattern is disrupted and understanding numbers in speech
becomes more difficult. The reported usage is probably
written, but I think even in writing ji'i can be confusing by
haphazardly separating digits in different groupings.

mu'o mi'e xorxes