Re: [lojban] A Question about GIJA

[selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de>]

la tsani cu cusku di'e
> If we decide to refactor the connective system, could {gi mu'i} be made
> to mean the same thing as the clunky {gi'e mu'i bo} (which under GIJA
> would be {gi je mu'i bo} ? I can see this breaking the case where {broda
> gi'e mu'i brode}. However, maybe if we throw in a {bo}, everything
> becomes okay? e.g. {.i broda gimu'ibo brode}. I think this works, and
> doesn't break anything.
>
> Thoughts?

I'm afraid this wouldn't be compatible with the forethought sentence 
connective + BAI bo (which isn't currently grammatical, but which I 
proposed a while back):

     (1) .i je gi broda gi bai bo brode

should be the forethought version of:

     (2) .i broda .i je bai bo brode

I don't know why (1) is not grammatical even under current rules (with 
{ge} instead of {je gi} of course), and I feel it should be.

With {gi bai bo}, there'd be "ambiguity" (sa'e, a problem):

     (3) .i je gi broda [gi bai bo] brode [gi brodi]

Is the [gi bai bo] a bridi-tail connective, or does it act as the 
seperator for the sentence-jeks as in (1)? If the former, then [gi 
brodi] must be added to finish the jeks and the option for BAI+bo as in 
(1) is lost entirely.

mu'o mi'e la selpa'i

--
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.