[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] {kai'i}
At 09:46 PM 8/10/01 -0400, Invent Yourself wrote:
> It is redundant only in a version of Lojban where you are not permitted
> to elide "ce'u".
To justify a new cmavo (ka) only to avoid the confusion from eliding
another one (ce'u) seems wasteful and actually un-Lojbanic.
Actually, that sounds VERY Lojbanic. There are many places in the language
where for *grammatical* reasons we have things done a certain way,
including introducing new cmavo, in order to allow ellipsis and
elision. All of the elidable terminators fit this to some extent.
It is also VERY "Lojbanic" to allow ellipsis whenever possible. Ellipsis
of ce'u is not really different from ellipsis of tense and number; it just
happens to be one that is uniquely meaningful to Lojban.
It sticks out
from the language at a weird angle; is there any other such case of such
redundancy in the cmavo?
Plenty. Some of the language exists, you recall, for historical backwards
compatibility. TLI Loglan doesn't have ce'u or du'u or tu'a or jai, and
doesn't give a fig about sumti-raising, but it does have the equivalent of
"ka" for its usefulness in tanru-like modification of a predicate per your
comment about lujvo below. It also has the same grammar in TLI Loglan as
their equivalent of nu, so that is what we did as well.
It seems a lot more elegant to actually ditch ka,
with the exception of lujvo.
We never attempted to design Lojban "elegantly". On the contrary, as a
language workbench, we put a lot of expressive tools into the language
which were of uncertain usability, with the expectation that some would be
more useful than others and that this could differ based on one's native
language.
lojbab
--
lojbab lojbab@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org