Subject: Re: [lojban] zipf computations & experimental cmavo

From: Rob Speer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:12:32 -0400

On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 03:27:28PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> And Rosta wrote:
> 
> 
> > My sense is that binding-to-broda would not be an adequate substitute
> > for these abbreviatory methods, but as long as the binder is asymmetric
> > (what is the binder? goi? -- I certainly insist that goi should be asymmetric),
> > the long form could be bound to any valid brivla form, which I do feel
> > would be satisfactory.
> 
> 
> It's cei, which is the pro-bridi analogue of goi, and subject to the
> same asymmetry rules.

So which way should they go?

I agree that a 'goi' which is symmetric is broken. Here's the problem which
probably inspired whoever it was to make it symmetric - to use 'goi' after a
complex phrase, you need to use a bunch of terminators, whereas it would go
before just fine. However, such an assignment tends to be an afterthought. So
both directions of assignment are important.

(For those who don't see the problem with symmetry: names are assignable.
Pro-sumti are assignable. What gets assigned if you say {la djan. goi ko'a}?)

I suppose experimental cmavo would be necessary to get it both ways, since I
see no way to attach a cmavo which switches the direction of assignment to
'goi' without changing the grammar. {segoi} would be nice, but doesn't parse.
-- 
la rab.spir
goi le sarji be zo gumri