Pierre:
The change of {fi'u} *does* seem to break existing text, and that is
bad. I could find no other PA, though, which needed to take both the
previous and the following number string. I'm also curious as to how
many texts has a {fi'u}-fraction - perhaps they could be changed?
When alone, fi'u could easily be defined as the golden ratio, though
this slightly breaks the consistensy. Still, how often does one use
that?
I seem to have missed {ci'i} altogether. I'm initially sceptical as to
whether an Aleph cardinal should have its "own" cmavo, but if it's
placed in PA3, it can take the next number string. I don't know enough
about aleph cardinality to know if the construct {ci'i NUMBER} means
infinity for any NUMBER. If so, this could be the default value with
no string following.
Perhaps we need new cmavo for keeping order on number strings, but I'm
not sure we need one for the two uses of {pi'e}. They seem to work in
the same way, differing only in semantics? This is easily resolved by
context.
In my system, {pa pi'e pi so pi'e pi rau} is grammatical. It probably
means 1:9/10:enough. Using the clock as an example, this could mean
1:00:54+enough.
{pi} and {ra'u} make no sense when they are the only numbers in a
number string. This is a problem. I take my suggestion back that
{ji'i} should be grammatical on its own. I'd like to see that a number
string cannot contain only PA5.
Perhaps {pi pai} is nonsense - you might be right.
Djandus:
I, too, agree that selma'o should be based purely on function. So yes,
there is no reason not to combine PA2 and PA6. Let's call this
hypothetical PA for PA2* If we fuse PA2 and PA6, we need a word for
"end number string". Otherwise, I think we could do without, since you
could just end a number string by beginning a new one. After all, why
have two number strings of the same selma'o describing the same
number?
PA4 and PA5 cannot be combined though, since only 1 of each PA5 makes
sense in a number string. (this, by the way is also a problem! if {li
pi pa ji'i} is grammatical, why not {li pi pa pi}? Solution: Only one
of each PA5 is permitted. That's a violation of the definition of a
selma'o, right? Darn.) I wouldn't like to see extra grammatical rules
for subgroups inside one selma'o - then I'd rather see ten selma'o of
PA. (why not? It encompasses 40 cmavo or so)
Right. Every grammatical string should not necesarrily be meaningful,
but it'd be nice if it were so, even if the meaning it conveys is
contradicory or silly.
I see it as right-grouping, because {za'u su'o fi'u vo} (more than at
least one divided by four) is understood (za'u(su'o(fi'u vo))).
Futhermore, {pa re ci} is structured (semantically, not necessarily
grammatically)
Otherwise, I agree with you completely.
--
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.