[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lojban] Re: tersmu 0.2



On 28 October 2014 11:32, Ilmen <ilmen.pokebip@gmail.com> wrote:

I think ultimately using a lookup table would be the best option, so that we definitively get rid of sumtcita in the logical form.

Moreover I don't think we can handle all the sumtcita the same way. If {broda ba xy} implies {lo nu broda cu balvi xy}, can we infer that {broda seka'a mi} implies {lo nu broda cu klama mi}? I don't think so.

A sumtcita ↔ bridi relative clause conversion table could look like the below:

SE ba X  =  xoi ke'a SE balvi X vau
se pi'o X  =  xoi X se pilno fi ke'a vau
SE ka'a X  =  xoi fasnu fa ke'a jo'u lo nu X SE klama vau
fau X  =  xoi fasnu fa ke'a jo'u X vau
(Here {ke'a} stands for the outer bridi.)

Furthermore, {ba} and {pu} are irregular sumtcita, in that their underlying predicate is inversed when they're used with {bo}:
• { brode .ije ba bo brodo } = { brode .ije ba lo nu go'i cu brodo }  (irregular ba/pu sumtcita)
• { brode .ije ki'u bo brodo } = { brode .ije se ki'u lo nu go'i cu brodo }  (regular sumtcita)

I certainly don't like the idea of having to define the BAI with a lookup table, but in the current Lojban, it seems unavoidable. If all tags truly were (simple) bridi operators (I think what you're doing with {ka'a} is a bit of a cheat) then a lookup table would be unnecessary. If they all would be true bridi operators, then the definitions (or reductions to xoi) would be simple, as with {ba} or {gau}.

.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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.