Re: [lojban] Re: Let's move {soi} to JOI. And why can't places be interconnected in lojban predicates?

[Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>]

I created a selma'o once for an idea I had (i.e. multiple-sumti relative clauses). It turns out that it does what you want {soi} to do. That is to say, "connect" two sumti, while preserving the fact that they fill different places in the selbri's structure. In particular, {ce'e} does this, but moving {soi} to CEhE would cause the awful side effect of the resulting joint sumti being connectable with pe'e+connective.

Anyway, the selma'o I had made up for this purpose is JOhOI and it has essentially the same grammar as CEhE, minus the pe'e stuff. The fact that the grammar is the same as CEhE means that it is implementable. "Move" soi into JOhOI (call it SOI still) and change se'u such that it doesn't terminate SOI anymore (only SEI). SOI still only connects sumti (or terms, due to the nature of CEhE) so there's no issue as there would have been with JOI.

Formally define the interpretation of SOI such that any of the sumti in the SOI-connected series can be arbitrarily swapped and the bridi still holds.

Problem solved? :)

mu'o mi'e la tsani

On 18 August 2012 19:34, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

Am 18.08.2012 20:14, schrieb djandus:

Whenever I first learned {soi}, I had a similar thought, but slightly different. It's not to take SOI and make it JOI, because that's basically completely undesired. Instead, it would say:

Use SOI like JOI between sumti, but only between sumti. (SOI thus allows {ku} elision)

What do you mean? ku can always be elided, even with JOI: lo mlatu joi lo gerku
There was a time when this didn't work due to parser limitations, but we're long past that.

SOI, like JOI, is allowed to make a SOI series. ({ko'a soi ko'e soi ko'i} is allowed.) SOI asserts that all sumti in the series can be swapped in any order without changing the validity of the overall bridi. Otherwise, you can remove all SOI (and insert the possibly elided {ku} where necessary) and parse the bridi exactly. (So every sumti still falls into the place structure as if SOI wasn't there, except that the components of the series can be swapped and replaced in any order.)

A similar thing happens in my proposal too, but this is a bit weird, because you're filling one sumti place while leaving all the others empy.

The benefit is that

mi prami do soi vo'a vo'e

is shortened to

mi soi do prami

And even more beneficial are longer statements, such as

mi bevri lo tanxe ku ti soi tu ca'o bi cacra ca lo cabdei

"I carried boxes there and back for eight hours today."

mi bevri lo tanxe ti fa'u tu ze'a lo cacra be li bi ca lo cabdei

[...]

However, this type of change sorely disagrees with current usage, so a new word would be more proper than a replacement.

soi sees extremely little usage; almost any change is an improvement, but moving soi to JOI is a bit odd, it still feels hackish. My suggestion doesn't break usage though, if that's really of importance.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

-- 
pilno zo le xu .i lo dei bangu cu se cmene zo lojbo .e nai zo lejbo

--

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.