From mark@kli.org Fri Sep 28 06:31:20 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: mark@kli.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_4_1); 28 Sep 2001 13:31:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 76755 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2001 13:31:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 28 Sep 2001 13:31:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO n4.groups.yahoo.com) (10.1.10.43) by mta1 with SMTP; 28 Sep 2001 13:31:19 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: mark@kli.org Received: from [10.1.10.66] by hk.egroups.com with NNFMP; 28 Sep 2001 13:31:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 13:31:14 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: periodic hexadecimal reminder Message-ID: <9p1u32+8stu@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: <0109280756580I.01489@neofelis> User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Length: 1444 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 162.33.229.2 From: mark@kli.org --- In lojban@y..., Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Wednesday 26 September 2001 17:00, John Cowan wrote: > > It's nonsense. The reason ju'u is an operator rather than a > > PA is to allow talking about variable bases: > > (10 base b) - 1 = 10 base (b - 1), e.g. But the left operand can't > > be anything but a digit string: (a+b) base c is just nonsense. > > Which is why ju'u should be in its own selma'o. Not necessarily. selma'o often do things like this, including words that only make sense in certain situations. {kau} doesn't really belong in UI, it's just handy because of where UI words can go (just about anywhere). The various "shift" characters in BY aren't really lerfu. {mi'e} is unique among COI in that it doesn't specify the addressee but the speaker. I think words like {pi'u} only apply to sets, not masses (similarly, {lu'o} doesn't make sense applied to a mass, nor {lu'a} to an individual). All kinds of PA words are very loosely jammed into "number" (like ci'i, fi'u, ma'u/ni'u... they all make sense in some situations, but what's one to make of the perfectly grammatical number {pa ci'i ci'i pa ma'u ma'u pa pa ni'u ma'u rau mo'a ka'o ka'o pai pai pi pi pi pi su'o}?) selma'o are syntactic groupings, and they can contain things that allow for semantic nonsense, like {li .abu ju'u vo}. That happens, and it's not the grammar's fault, nor does it lie with the grammar to fix it. ~mark