Subject: Re: [lojban] Re: The Pleasures of goi (was: zipf computations & experimental cmavo

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2001 20:51:43 -0400

At 01:12 PM 9/30/01 +0000, [email-masked] wrote:
>Indeed. I therefore propose that ''da'o'' be used to specify
>assymetry in ''goi'' and ''cei'' assignments. Whichever element is
>da'o-ed is considered to be cleared out and overwritten by the new
>value. This may well mean redefining ''da'o'', which I think
>currently means "undefine everything." For that meaning, I propose
>''da'oda'o''. DAhO has the same grammar as UI, near enough, so it
>can be considered to attach to things. ''da'o'' outside of goi/cei
>will retain the meaning of undefining whatever it's attached to.
>This, I think, is a pretty small change, not really munging baseline
>badly, and certainly it accords with grammar. And I think it neatly
>solves several problems at once. ''--mi'e mark''
>
>I second. DAhO is another example of a selma'o that should not
>exist. Apparently the only difference with UI is that ''da'onai'' is
>not allowed, but it has a very useful meaning: when you want to
>emphasize that you are __not__ undefining something. So, whenever it
>is pertinent, ''da'o'' should be moved to UI. --mi'e [xorxes]
>
>(end of quoting)
>
>What think you, And et al?

I agree (for once %^). da'o should have been UI. If so, then you could do 
a single unbinding using da'oru'e (this would be as legal now as da'oda'o, 
but given the parser algorithm specified in the grammar description, in 
theory the da'o disappears before the ru'e is applied; I doubt that the 
parser actually cares though). I don't support a baseline change, of 
course, but there seems to be enough material in the language to manage 
what needs to be said.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
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