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

Re: [lojban] Re: Tanru automatically forming



What would be an acceptable sort of answer? So far you have one from practicality (there are many tanru so it will lengthen already overlong sentences), one from one sort of theory (parts of compounds are tightly bound and don't need additional marks), Lojban is based on Logic and in Logic you can't have this addition because of the regression problem, and the empirical evidence that most languages don't use explicit connectors between modifier and modified. Since your question was "Why do it this way?" (or maybe, "Why not do it this other way?), these seem sufficient answers.  In addition, I suppose, we should add "Because nobody thought of it at the times" -- probably for some of the mentioned factors.

From: Ian Johnson <blindbravado@gmail.com>
To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, December 28, 2010 4:52:32 PM
Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: Tanru automatically forming

"It won't be implemented" doesn't progress much towards answering my question, especially since my question was never a proposal.

The arguments so far seem to be "tanru are more common than you think" and "the binding between seltau and tertau is tight enough that it makes logical sense for it to not need a cmavo". Any others?

mu'o mi'e .latros.

On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Lindar <lindarthebard@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm sorry; I just can't see any substantive upside to making tanru
> non-forming by default.

+1

> Even as much as I see people forming them all
> the time by accident (generally because they don't completely
> understand how terminators work.)

+1

> I may be a bit biased, though,
> because I generally love using tanru. I use tons of them, because they
> often get the job done faster and with the same, easily implied
> meaning.

+1

> For any given bridi, the only common place where you'll have
> to consciously mark against tanru creation is before the 'main'
> selbri, and that's easily solved with at worst a single terminator, or
> {cu} to avoid multiples. I use tanru within {lo ... ku} quite often
> and to have to mark that I'm creating tanru would absolutely slow my
> speech and add way too much verbosity. Nothing gained, plenty lost.

+1

> As a brief aside - and please, no one take this as a a personal attack
> - this sort of proposal is the sort of thing that breathes of improper
> mastery of terminators. tanru became *far* less confusing and ominous
> to me once I learned them properly.

+1

It's one of many nifty ideas that will never ever ever be implemented
in Lojban. Sorry.

mi'e .lindar. mu'o

--
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.


--
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.

--
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.