[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [lojban] A Simpler Connective System (blog article)
On 26.09.2016 17:22, Jacob Errington wrote:
In the official grammar, it can be observed that {cu} is a terminator
by noticing that it is elided only when one or more terms precede the
bridi-tail: contrast {ko'a [cu] broda [vau]} with {broda [vau]}. The
proposed connective reform does more than reform connectives. It
alters the operation of {cu}, so that rather act as a bridi-head
elidible terminator, it acts as a bridi-tail elidible *initiator*.
{cu} is not really a terminator. The fact that you can't have {cu}
without a bridi-tail is evidence of that. If {cu} were really a
bridi-head terminator, {ko'a cu} should be a valid fragment. Note also
that people think that things like {sei broda cu brode} should be legal.
This shows that psychologically {cu} belongs to the tail, rather than
the head.
Also, {cu} and {vau} don't really form a pair. {vau} appears even in
phrases that contain zero {cu}, and the number of {vau} in sentences
containing bridi-tails exceeds the number of {cu}. If they were a real
pair, they should always appear equally often.
Reforming the overly complex connective system is an excellent goal,
but I am against the means to that end employed in this proposal,
namely the alteration of {cu} to become an elidible initiator (which
would also make it the first of its kind, I think).
I like to compare {cu} to FA. A FA is an optional marker for a
particular sumti, while {cu} is an optional marker for the selbri. Both
FA and CU mark particular slots in the bridi.
~~~mi'e la solpa'i
--
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.