Re: [lojban] Re: Named multiples

[Minimiscience <minimiscience@gmail.com>]

de'i li 02 pi'e 06 pi'e 2010 la'o fy. Lindar .fy. cusku zoi skamyxatra.
> I really, truly, honestly believe that your idea is a bad one.
> That's not regular grammar. It -is- an exception. It is ambiguous in
> meaning. A computer could not parse it.
.skamyxatra

Although it doesn't really affect your main point, I feel like I should point
out that interpretation of vocatives is entirely *semantic*, not
syntactic/grammatical.  It *is* regular grammar; it's the same grammar as
before, except that the rules for <COI> <selbri> and <COI> <CMENE>+ have now
been merged.  A computer could still parse vocatives, and the resulting syntax
tree would be the same.  The {lo}/{le}/{la} ambiguity only becomes apparent if
a computer or human attempts to assign a *meaning* to a vocative, which is at
least one level of abstraction higher than the grammar.  Moreover, Lojban
already contains known (and unavoidable) semantic ambiguities, such as {tanru}
(which are ambiguous almost by definition), determining whether an instance of
"{lo broda}" under xorlo truly {broda}s, and, say, referring to "{la .djan.}"
in a bathroom full of male native Anglophones accompanied by ladies of
negotiable affection (I apologize for the mental image).  The question (well,
*a* question) is whether this new potential ambiguity of vocatives does not
exceed these other uncertainties.

mu'omi'e .kamymecraijun.

-- 
jicmu traji zifre fa loi remna lonu senpi

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.