Re: [lojban] A Question about GIJA

[Jacob Errington <nictytan@gmail.com>]

On 3 June 2013 06:05, selpa'i <seladwa@gmx.de> wrote:

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

Instead of having the tag be in an afterthought position, why can't we move it into the front? e.g. {.i je bai bo gi broda gi 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.

Indeed, there's a problem if we let {gi bai bo} do what you propose, which I why I suggesting changing that form to one that is fully forethought instead of a mix of fore- and afterthought. I think that preserving this odd mixture of both connective styles isn't worth sacrificing the ability to make TAG bridi-tail afterthought connectives that don't require a preexisting connective.

Even though no other afterthought bridi-tail connectives need {bo}, requiring {bo} after {gi TAG} in my proposal is in line with requiring {bo}  after {.i TAG}, with roughly the same rationale, too.

.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 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.