[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] tanru ordering and a cmavo proposal
On 01/05/2011 09:47 AM, Ian Johnson wrote:
This proposal is about {co}. There are basically two orders of seltau,
tertau, sumti-of-seltau, and sumti-of-tertau that are allowed. These are:
[ST] S SS T ST. No {co} needed.
[ST] T ST S SS. {co} needed.
The following case came up on IRC last night and is not possible at
the moment:
[ST] T S SS ST
The problem is that once you use {co}, any sumti you throw out there
afterwards are SS automatically. In essence this is basically like
being trapped in a NU, where all the sumti you say get sucked up into
the NU until {kei} or something that forces it like {cu} comes up.
Accordingly, why should {co} not have a terminator? Have a terminator
like {co'ai}, and then you have equivalences like:
ko'a broda co brode ko'e ko'i co'ai ko'o == ko'a brode be ko'e bei
broda ko'i
Formally:
Proposal: {co'ai}. Terminator for {co}. When supplied, sumti that
follow it are considered to be sumti of the tertau, rather than sumti
of the seltau.
I don't think it's necessary, any more than we need something in a
stream of sumti that signals "OK, the following sumti are arguments to
the seltau, not the tertau." The whole point of {co} is that at least
as far as following sumti are concerned, the tanru has *become*
reversed, and now the seltau is the head. If you wanted trailing sumti
on the tertau, you should have attached them with {be}/{bei} before the
{co}.
~mark
--
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.