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

Re: [lojban] Re: Reasoning by analogy


On 2021-01-13 16:51, scope845hlang343jbo@icebubble.org wrote: 
I'm looking at the EBNF grammar in the CLL, but not seeing it.  Are you
using the rule statement-2_13?  Odd... the on-line version of the CLL
contains the EBNF, but not the YACC grammar.  According to the YACC:

lexer_K_955             :  lexer_K_711  I_root_956  BO_508
                        |  lexer_K_711  I_root_956  simple_tag_971  BO_508
                        ;

The "simple_tag_971" doesn't permit {fi'o} clauses.  Are you using
grammar.300?

I just use camxes. Perhaps the CLL doesn't allow fi'o clauses as sentence connectives due to a limitation in the parser (it would require too much lookahead, maybe?) Camxes essentially allows unlimited lookahead.

Anyway, there's no compelling reason that it should be forbidden, if we believe that fi'o clauses should be equivalent to BAI tags.

It turns out that in the decades since the CLL was published that the
language has continued to evolve and that interpretations have been
refined. The CLL interpretation for fi'o falls a bit flat because it
doesn't explain the connection between this new place and the old
selbri, whereas the 'new' interpretation is for the most part
compatible with the old one (gives essentially the same
interpretations) while being more precise.

The CLL's description of the meaning of {fi'o} clauses isn't expressed
particularly clearly, but the meaning expressed is pretty clear.  The
meaning of a {fi'o} clause is determined the same way as for BAI cmavo:
it specifies something which fills the x1 place of the BAI or FIhO
clause.  Tenses are interpereted slightly differently (exchanging the x1
and x2 places) for historical reasons.  What is this "new", modern,
interpretation of {fi'o}, as you understand it?

Here's the explanation I gave in my message on 2 January:

The usual strategy to interpret a {fi'o} clause is to rearrange to make its selbri the top-level selbri. For example, I would interpret {mi fi'o simsa do se bangu lo lojbo} as

  mi do simsa lo ka lo lojbo cu bangu
  + a claim that {mi se bangu lo lojbo}

The same idea applies to BAI, so {.i broda .i seni'i bo brode} is interpreted as

  lo du'u broda cu nibli lo du'u brode
  + the fact that both {broda} and {brode} are claimed 

I do need to mention thought that I don't particularly _like_ this example using simsa, since you have to "split" the sentence to fill two separate places of simsa (namely x1 and x3). It's cleaner when the whole enclosing bridi moves directly into a nu or du'u abstraction, e.g.

  .i fi'o djuno mi lo bruna cu djica co sonci binxo

And I would interpret as

  .i mi djuno lo du'u lo bruna cu djica co sonci binxo + a claim that "lo bruna cu djica co sonci binxo".

This lines up with the way tenses are interpreted, except as you mentioned, tenses are backwards.

  .i mi pu lo nu sipna cu cadzu lo klaji
  .i lo nu mi cadzu lo klaji cu purci lo nu sipna + a claim that "mi cadzu lo klaji"

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lojban/6dc45c4b-9d4c-2b2b-7b90-a3cfe63910cb%40mail.jerrington.me.