From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Sep 27 09:52:15 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 27 Sep 2001 16:52:15 -0000 Received: (qmail 89322 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2001 16:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by 10.1.4.55 with QMQP; 27 Sep 2001 16:52:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-3.cais.net) (205.252.14.73) by mta2 with SMTP; 27 Sep 2001 16:52:13 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (226.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.226]) by stmpy-3.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f8RGqBC89611 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:52:12 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010927124034.00d7a290@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 12:48:49 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] zipf computations & experimental cmavo In-Reply-To: <20010926161232.B781@twcny.rr.com> References: <3BB22C20.2050008@reutershealth.com> <3BB22C20.2050008@reutershealth.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:12 PM 9/26/01 -0400, Rob Speer wrote: >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}?) The original thought was that one of the two (and not the other) would always refer to a specific which is otherwise identified, and one would refer to an as yet unassigned variable. Could bi'u/bi'unai be used to resolve this in the event (which I still can't fathom) that one would use goi with something other than this case? >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. Personally, I suspect one could resolve a lot of these problems by going metalinguistic with a sei bridi, and some simply by creatively using noi/poi with an appropriate brivla. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org