From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Wed Aug 29 13:47:33 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2); 29 Aug 2001 20:47:32 -0000 Received: (qmail 30141 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2001 20:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta03-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.43) by mta2 with SMTP; 29 Aug 2001 20:34:38 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.253.90.250]) by mta03-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010829203435.CAPE23687.mta03-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:34:35 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Another stab at a Record on ce'u Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 21:33:48 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0) Importance: Normal In-Reply-To: X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Xod: > On Tue, 28 Aug 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > > pc: > > > The best meeting of the various desiderata for {ka} then seems to be: > > > all {zo'e} = {du'u} , 1 or 2 {ceu} use scheme 2 (first free space assumed > > > {ce'u}), 3 or 4 {ce'u} use scheme 5 (show all {zo'e}), all {cu'e} : {cu'e} > > > in exactly the first free space. > > > > This record was not a model of clarity, tho it may well have been > > exemplary in other respects. So can I try to outline what I take to > > be an explicit version of your scheme? > > > > 1. All empty sumti places within du'u fill with zo'e. > > 2. In ka abstractions, the first empty place fills with ce'u and the > > rest fill with zo'e. > > Exception (or generalization): where context indisputably demands > > a ka abstraction expressing an n-adic relation, where the value of > > n is certain, the first n empty places fill with ce'u and the rest > > with zo'e. > > 3. EITHER (XOR): > > 3a. In a ka abstraction, if an overt ce'u fills the x1 then all > > following empty places fill with ce'u. > > XOR: > > 3b. In a ka abstraction, if a ce'u precedes the first empty place > > then all following empty places fill with ce'u. > > > > > > Comments: > > > > A. Empty places and their sequence have to be defined as x1 > (because I can't see any other way of defining them). This means > > that {ka broda .... fa ko'a} will gardenpath people, because they'll > > misparse as {ka ce'u broda}. There's probably no way round this; you > > have to wait to the end of tbe clause to know where the ce'u and > > zo'e go. Your only safe bet to avoid gardenpathing is to use overt > > ce'u within du'u. > > > > B. Rules 2-3 raise further problems of specification: > > > > i. Does an empty place within a nonempty x1 precede an empty x2? > > > > ii. If nonempty x3 precedes nonempty x2, does an empty place within > > x3 precede an empty place within x2? > > > > C. {ka ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u ce'u klama} = {la'e zo klama}, so it may > > be that Rule 3 doesn't have to be relied on that much. > > la'e zo klama = le si'o klama? Yes. Or at least {le si'o klama kei be zi'o}. > > Conclusions: > > > > Either: > > > > I. Revert to my du'u/ka/si'o proposal > > > > or: > > > > II. a. Leave ka grungey, i.e. totally reliant on glorking. > > b. To avoid relying on glorking, use du'u, lo'e and la'e zo. > > Is this your I? > > 1. Writing > a. Always write ce'u, and never in a filled place. Never in a filled place. Always write it in du'u. Optionally write it in si'o, but with no risk of ambiguity. In ka, do whatever you like, at your own risk. [Regarding ka, that's a difference from my original proposal.] > i. ce'u makes sense in li'i as well as du'u and ka. Actually, I don't think so. Does "li'i da -rain" [bugger. tip of the tongue. carmi?cevni? no] (= experience of it raining) make sense. I think it does. So I think "experience of having legs" is NOT "li'i ce'u se tuple" but rather "li'i le se NO'AU se tuple", where NO'AU = next outer phrase (regardless of whether it is a bridi) = a sibling of NO'A. > b. ka and du'u are interchangeable if there is at least one ce'u. I don't dare make statements about ka. Too hazardous. > ka expects at least one ce'u, du'u expects 0 or more. Right. > c. In kambroda lujvo, the ce'u is in the first place. Meaning "brodahood"? > I don't know how to lujvoize ka ce'u broda ce'u. I'm not sure you'd want to. > d. si'o implicitly fills up all the places with ce'u. Yes. > But outside of si'o, all empty places are zo'e. Again, with the exception of ka, unless and until consensus is agreed on workable conventions for it. > 2 Reading > a. Understand that the older texts may have implicit ce'u floating about, > including in places that are already filled! You're on your own, context > is your guide. Also, importantly, understand that ka/nu/du'u may be mixed up and misused by today's standards. --And.