Re: [lojban] sumti-raising cmavo thingy

[Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak.prog@gmail.com>]

On 12 July 2016 at 15:16, Jacob Errington <jake@mail.jerrington.me> wrote:

.i coi ro do

> On Jul 12, 2016, at 6:08 AM, Bruno Panasiewicz <ciuak.prog@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Just like { mi cizra }, which needs a {jai} (because I'm not an event), { lo briju cu minde } should also be fixed with a {jai}-like cmavo, X. X, contrary to {jai}, would be in SE (because we don't need to use the {jai}-plus-sumtcita feature).
> In order to fix the example, we'd say {zo'ei lo briju cu minde} (which is not very natural), or, using X, {lo briju cu X minde}.
>
> Explaining it with a simple relation might help:
>
>  tu'a : jai : (kai'a) ::
> zoi'e :  X  :    Y
>
> It's also worth considering the Y, because it could be useful.

Agreed. A {jai}-like cmavo to perform the action of {zo'ei} would be pretty cool.

It would, just like {jai}. I imagine Loglanists (and maybe Lojbanists of the 80s) struggle with {da poi tu'a ke'a} and {lo ckaji be lo ka tu'a ce'u}. Similarly, we're struggling with the lack of X, so I guess it's worth considering it.

 

First, I would like to point to {jai'a}[1] (in its own selma'o) which latro'a and I coined quite a while ago to promote arbitrary LAhE into selbri transformers. Being able to promote LAhE is cumbersome though, and I think that a {jai}-like {zo'ei} would be enough in practice.

I agree. {jai'a} seems to be a useful thing, but {jai'a zo'ei} would be too much, taking its frequency into account. (That is, frequency of usage IF {jai'a} was mainstreamed.)

 

Second, I say "selbri transformer" because although SE can act as selbri transformers, they are overloaded to also operate on BAI (or more generally tags) and on connectives. That being said there is a tradeoff to be made in deciding whether the new cmavo should be in SE or in a new selma'o. Specifically, by placing it in SE without coming up with (ideally useful) semantics about its interactions with tags and connectives opens the door to new kinds of nonsense. On the other hand, everybody understands SE and adding selma'o should be done lightly.

That's a big issue, because everyone'd be split over whether to have it in SE. I think it's time to implement something like multiple selma'o for a word.

As for that, considering the {li} & {cu} merge (having {li} take over {cu}'s functions to free a point in the small monosyllabary space), {li} would be in a horrible situation -- would it be in LI? CU? something else? It'd need to be in two selma'o *at once*: the number to sumti modifiers (now LI) and the selbri starter (now CU).

I guess it's important to consider more-than-one-selma'o words that don't create a horrible mess on the selma'o list.

Back to the main point: now I think that SE would be a better choice, because assigning a meaning to {X BAI} isn't a big deal (perhaps it'd be the same as {BAI zo'ei}).

 

Finally, I don't know what {kai'a} means. Could someone add it to jbovlaste?

It's discussed in the blog post I linked to. selpa'i didn't add it to JVS because the name was only for the sake of the article and not permanent.

 

.i mi'e la tsani mu'o

i mi'e kamyuakcykezykempavdzakai mu'o re'i jo'au bomzanturfa'i xi pa pi pa xa

 

[1] http://jbovlaste.lojban.org/dict/jai'a

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