[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2
la .xorxes. cu cusku di'e
In the particular case of "tu'a" in
LAhE, for example, we can just create two subselmaho LAhE1 and LAhE2
which share the same morphophonological combinatorics but differ
(slightly) in the logical form behind them.
I actually think {tu'a} deserves its own selma'o. Not only is it
different from the other LAhE, there is also a proposal to allow {tu'a}
to work on tag-terms:
tu'a bai ko'a -> lo su'u bai ko'a zo'u co'e
There are no obviously useful corresponding forms for the other LAhE, so
I would personally be tempted to move {tu'a} to TUhA rather than
creating a bunch of meaningless but "grammatical" forms for non-{tu'a} LAhE.
In a similar vein, I am for splitting up the PA selma'o in order to
outlaw the many nonsensical grammatical PA-strings and to give the
meaningful PA-strings a proper parse tree (which they currently do not
have. The meaning of complex quantifiers corresponds only rarely to the
structure the parser suggests).
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/d/optout.