From rob@twcny.rr.com Wed Sep 26 13:13:08 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_2); 26 Sep 2001 20:11:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 29744 invoked from network); 26 Sep 2001 20:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by 10.1.1.220 with QMQP; 26 Sep 2001 20:11:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout5.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.169) by mta1 with SMTP; 26 Sep 2001 20:13:07 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-1 [24.92.226.139]) by mailout5.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.6/Road Runner 1.12) with ESMTP id f8QKD5o20550 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:13:05 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.92.246.4]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:12:06 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.32 #1 (Debian)) id 15mL2m-0000F9-00 for ; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:12:32 -0400 Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 16:12:32 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] zipf computations & experimental cmavo Message-ID: <20010926161232.B781@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <3BB22C20.2050008@reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3BB22C20.2050008@reutershealth.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.20i X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer 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