From mark@kli.org Sat Sep 08 19:44:38 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 9 Sep 2001 02:44:37 -0000 Received: (qmail 75673 invoked from network); 9 Sep 2001 02:44:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l9.egroups.com with QMQP; 9 Sep 2001 02:44:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n7.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.46) by mta1 with SMTP; 9 Sep 2001 02:44:37 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org Received: from [10.1.10.64] by fj.egroups.com with NNFMP; 09 Sep 2001 02:44:37 -0000 Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2001 02:44:36 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: Mark on wiki on lerfu Message-ID: <9nel2k+7u3u@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 2016 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2 From: mark@kli.org --- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote: > In a message dated 9/8/2001 5:45:03 PM Central Daylight Time, > jjllambias@h... writes: > > > > Actually, there's lots more: last, lasp, lask, lact, latc, laks, > > lank, lart, and so on are all single-syllable too. All unnecessary, with lerfu. Moreover, while I suppose you CAN do this sort of thing, it's sort of cheating, in the opposite direction of what I was talking about, using {mark.bu} instead of {la mark.} "lank" (or rather "la nk.") is "something named nk." Well, then, it should be something with that name! To be sure, the speaker, as te cmene, has the right to name anything whatever he likes, but this abuse of that power. And since "goi" is symmetric, with only relative unassignedness to show which side gets overwritten by the other, using a *named thing* on one side might upset that balance. ("wait, he's saying that the woman is really this NK person? Maybe NK isn't a woman but he wants to call it that?) Anyway, that's what variables are for, not names. > > Gringe. Can someone remind me of the point of this, please. Why would we > want all these horrors, assigned or not? The maximum effective anaphora is > going to contain maybe half-a-dozen connections tops; beyond that we cannot > either remember or calculate the reference, whence the slogan "Repetition is > also anaphora." It is nice to ahve all these tools available for choices, > but we do not need them to do the work (we don't even need the fo'V set, > rpobably, as witness there heavy use so far.) Well, I think I'd argue that given the heavier mnemonicity of lerfu-based anaphora, we can probably go over that half-dozen limit pretty safely. If you have a bunch of people/things with unique one- or two-letter initials that you bind, it's not too hard to keep track of them. Another example of how lerfu-variables rule and ko'a, um, doesn't. (fo'[aei] are the only ones that DO have an excuse to still be used: they have rafsi) ~mark