Re: [lojban] Forethought Tanru-Internal TAG Connectives

[la gleki <gleki.is.my.name@gmail.com>]

On Wednesday, April 17, 2013 1:54:36 PM UTC+4, selpa'i wrote:
> la tsani cu cusku di'e
> > I'll get straight to the point: they don't exist.
>
> In general, there is a lack of forethought TAG connectives [1]. You can 
> say {TAG gi broda gi brode}, but not *{ge BAI gi/bo? broda gi brode}, 
> although you can do it with afterthoughts: {broda gi'e TAG bo brode}. 
> And then there the reverse also doesn't work; that is, TAG afterthoughts 
> without logical connectives like *{ko'a bai bo ko'e}.
>
> Also, the current parsers don't like {ge broda gi ba bo brode}.
>
> > The lack of consistency annoys me, as I'm sure it does others, too. It's
> > part of what makes me in favour of the connective reform involving such
> > things as {gije} as a replacement for {gi'e}, which would equally
> > provide us with a means for producing non-logical bridi-tail
> > afterthought connectives.
>
> That makes us at least four or five then.

ja'o ei ciska lo cnino me cylyly gijenai casnu do'e lo mriste 

i da'i ma ba te vecnu lo pelji me cylyly pe ra'i la'oi docbook i ainai mi te vecnu lo pelji co'e

iseni'ibo na nitcu lo simsa cukta i lo uitki me cylyly ba banzu

> > P.S. It occurred to me that they didn't exist when I tried translating
> > "We do what we must because we can" as *{.i zukte lo semu'igi se bilga
> > gi se zifre}, but {TAGgi} only works for non-tanru-internal forethought
> > connectives.
>
> Do you want a forethought version of {lo se bilga je mu'i bo se bilga} 
> or one without the logical connective? I think both should be allowed to 
> exist, but currently neither does.
>
> (Under GIJA) would something like {se mu'i gu broda gi brode} work? As a 
> reminder, GU would be the GI of tanru forethoughts (GUJA replacing GUhA).
>
> > Using {zukte semu'igi lo se bilga gi lo se zifre} is out of
> > the question because the meaning is different. I want to get at the
> > meaning of "we do the (things that we must do because we can do them)"
> > rather than "(we do the things that we must do) (because we can do
> > them)." In sum, the fact that these types of connectives don't exist
> > is frustrating and inconsistent and should be fixed in order for the
> > language to be in accordance with its philosophy.
>
> Amen.
>
> mu'o mi'e la selpa'i
>
> [1] This table (from CLL Chapter 14, Section 20) clearly shows that 
> forethoughts don't come with TAG support:
>
>    construct   afterth. foreth.  afterth.  foreth.
>                      logical  logical  non-log.  non-log.
>      ---------   -------  -------  --------  --------
>
>      bridi       ijek*    gek     ijoik*     joigik
>      sumti       ek*      gek     joik*      joigik
>      bridi-tails gihek*   gek     ---        joigik
>      termsets    ek*      gek     joik*      joigik
>      tanru parts jek      guhek   joik*      ---
>      operands    ek*      gek     joik*      joigik
>      operators   jek      guhek   joik       ---
>      tenses/modals   jek      ---     joik       ---
>      abstractors jek      ---     joik       ---
>
> An asterisk (*) indicates that tensed connection is permitted.

-- 
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 post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.