[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] [oz] Logical connectives
la'o me. Felipe Gonçalves Assis .me cusku di'e
I was puzzled by the use of logic connectives in several passages. E.g.
(1) {zàsti fa no sai drùsro je no lolnitkù'a}
(2) {no trìcu je no zdàni cu zvàti}
Ah right, these must have slipped through during my search and replace
marathon. They should use {.e} instead of {je}. If you find more such
examples, please let me know.
I see there is some consistency in their correlation with quantifiers,
but still I don't get it. What is the logic behind them?
Logically, {je} is the same as {.e}, but {je} can't connect sumti under
official rules. At some point, the text used GIJA, or the connective
unification grammar, but I reverted to the standard grammar. That's why
you might still find some {je} that connect sumti; they are leftovers.
They are rejected by both camxes and jboski, but accepted by the parser
you indicated. Nevertheless, the parser also understands {ko'a je ko'e
broda} just like {ko'a .e ko'e broda}. Is it related to expansion order?
The parser is overly lenient by treating all connectives as
interchangeable. Not only can you use {je} to connect sumti (as was the
idea of the (not so) Mad Proposals), but you can also use {.e} to
connect tanru units. None of this (should) happen in my Oz translation.
mi'e la selpa'i 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.