From a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com Sat Sep 08 10:38:14 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: a.rosta@dtn.ntl.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 8 Sep 2001 17:38:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 81541 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2001 17:38:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 8 Sep 2001 17:38:07 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mta06-svc.ntlworld.com) (62.253.162.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 8 Sep 2001 17:38:07 -0000 Received: from andrew ([62.255.40.206]) by mta06-svc.ntlworld.com (InterMail vM.4.01.03.00 201-229-121) with SMTP id <20010908173804.KBMD288.mta06-svc.ntlworld.com@andrew> for ; Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:38:04 +0100 Reply-To: To: Subject: RE: [lojban] Re: Mark on wiki on lerfu Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 18:37:19 +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: <9najkv+v61k@eGroups.com> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200 From: "And Rosta" Mark: > --- In lojban@y..., "And Rosta" wrote: > > Mark writes > (http://nuzban.wiw.org/wiki/index.php?Type%204%20fu%27ivla): > > > > "we can use any string of lerfu as a ko'a-style sumti variable > (which makes me > > think that there's practically no reason ever to use the ko'a series > at all)" > > > > -- can you explain? > > Um, I can try. > > As I understand it, any old lerfu-string in a sentence can be used as > a sumti (yes, it's also a mex, usable with li, and so forth. I mean > just a bare string of lerfu as a sumti). It's considered a "variable" > pro-sumti, assignable with goi (well, you can assign any sumti with > goi, but I mean it's semantically and pragmatically sensible in > general with lerfu-strings). If unassigned, they default to the most > recent sumti with the appropriate initial letter(s), if any, or so > they tell me. Ah. I hadn't realized they were assignable. How do you tell whether a sequence of two lerfu is one lerfu string (one sumti) or a sequence of two lerfu strings (two sumti)? > So I can say "le ctuca .e le vecnu cu prami le speni be > cy." for "the teacher and the merchant [separately] love the spouse of > the teacher," relying on the default that "cy." goes back to "ctuca." > Or, more conservatively, you can say "le ctuca goi cy. .e le vecnu..." > with the same result, using cy. exactly like ko'a (with the slight > difference that an unassigned ko'a is meaningless, This is debatable. I'm of the view that unassigned ko'a = "it" = "le du". So "ko'a klama" = "it goes, a certain thing goes"; "ko'a ge pendo be mi gi klama" = "a certain friend of mine goes". > while an unassigned > lerfu-string will at least TRY to find a meaning, possibly the one you > wanted). So basically, a lerfu-string can do anything a ko'a can do, > and then some. The two and-then-somes are: (a) as mentioned, if it's > unassigned, it will try to snag a nearby meaning, and if done > properly, this is not so bad and pretty reliable (see below). (b) > lerfu-strings have far more potential for mnemonic power than ko'a. This is what attracted my notice. I'd proposed ko'au (or ko'ai -- I forget which) for this reason. > It's a lot easier to keep track of pronouns for la bab., la djan., la > .alis., and la fred. as by., dy., .abu, and fy. than as ko'a, ko'e, > ko'i, and ko'o (has ANYONE ever used ko'o? I had to look that one up > to double-check that it really was still in the series). > > I like using these, though I don't trust the implicit assignments > completely (but I do use them, just not in all cases). The > mnemonicity is a real brain-saver. I don't like the implicit > assignment with descriptors, though, for some reason. Somehow it > doesn't seem that reliable. Maybe it's because there's nothing about > lo ctuca that particularly would associate her with cy; I might just > as easily have described her as lo ninmu and use ny. This is not a > valid argument I'm making, just something that sort of affects my > thinking (after all, there are endlessly many names for everyone). > Also, with all the brivla that get used in a sentence, I could easily > forget that there was another intervening cy-sumti that would thus get > misassigned. But with names I have no such qualms, especially if I > have a two-word name and can use two initials. This saves me the > assignment step, and works quite well. So in > http://www.kli.org/kli/langs/KLIlojban.html I refer to "la mark. > okrand." and then in the next sentence use "my.obu." Perhaps that's > counting on a little too much, that the reader should know I'm taking > initials (as opposed to, say, the first two letters in the name), I > don't know. I think it works. Or recently I was writing something > about the Phillip Morris company, referring to it as "la filip moris" > and then as "fy.my." (or "fymy.") might "fymy" be one sumti and "fy my" two? > On the other hand, when I > introduced the KLI as "la klingon. zei bangu ckule", I assigned it > with "goi kybycy." and used that throughout (I didn't trust the > assignment to a tanru/lujvo/zei-thingy of indeterminate initials). > Multi-letter strings are even less prone to confusion than single > letters, so I think they work quite well. I used "xy." for the KLI's > journal HolQeD, but assigned it with goi, since I used la'o quotes and > can't count on people to know the pronunciation. > > (As an aside, here's a bizarre consequence... since cmene+bu is > syntactically a lerfu, you could use ".mark.bu" as a sumti, leaving it > up to the listener to somehow work out who it was... which isn't all > that much worse than saying "la mark." and hoping they know. Ooh, this is ingenious! > The best > guess for "mark.bu" is probably somebody named Mar[ck], right? (And no > cracks about how "mark.bu" is some "letter Mark." That's true, when > *mentioned*, but not when used this way. "li mark.bu" is a > mathematical expression, like using "area" as a variable. To get > "letter-mark" you'd need a letter context, not a sumti context. Just > like I can use "by." for la bab., I can use "mark.bu" for la > markonilentironafilos.)) > > The only advantage ko'a-series does still have (aside from history) is > the fact that three of the fo'a series (fo'a, fo'e, fo'i) have rafsi > and can thus make lujvo... but has anyone really done this? and what on earth could it mean? > So that's > why I say I think the ko'a-series doesn't have much utility. Anything > they can do, lerfu-strings can, and more, and easier. > > Nick just sent me (at long last) comments on the KLI info page in > Lojban, so I'll probably be making some edits in it soon. Look at it > anyway; I'm pretty proud of it, mistakes and all. > > And, should this rant go on the Wiki? Oh yes, defo. Probably under [Proposed interpretive conventions] would be the best place. But clear up my one sumti/two sumti question first. --And. ps Oh sorry -- I see you answered that question in a later message. That boi's a bit of a downer to your proposals, isn't it.