Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request

From: "Adam Raizen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 04:34:53 -0000

la rab.spir. cusku di'e

> But {na'eca'a} parses, and in fact {na'epu'i} is even in the cmavo
list.
> CAhA is just glaringly different from other tense cmavo in the way
it's
> negated, though. People _do_ say {ka'enai}, when {na'eka'e} would be
the
> grammatical version.

There is a difference in meaning between 'na ka'e' and 'na'eka'e', and
while it might not be important in most cases, it probably is in some.

> Okay. I'm willing to accept that this system is more powerful, but
is
> there any document which explains how this power should be _used_?
The
> Book rarely uses more than two tenses at a time, so it doesn't give
much
> of an indication of how they interact.

It's the job of users of lojban to discover how the power should be
used. The book started us off, and now we have the other 75% to
discover.

> Also, I know from other situations like (as you point out) numbers,
and
> UI, that meaningless conglomerations of words can be grammatical.
It's
> not the grammar's job to restrict semantics.

Going to the logical extreme, we could make everything be of selma'o
UI, including selbrivla. That wouldn't restrict anyone from saying
anything, but it also wouldn't be able to be called unambiguous in any
sense. Grammatical specifications of how to use the different selma'o
are necessary, though there may be room in the current system for
improvement.

> How does this justify VA and ZI being separate? And do they in fact
have
> different grammar, or is this another case of a bogus split in
selma'o?
> (I forget what the other one was - I think it involved TAhE)

Yes, ZAhO and TAhE and number+ROI are all grammatically identical, but
putting ZAhO and TAhE into one selma'o wouldn't help learning at all,
since there's a semantic distinction to be made, and any glance at the
formal grammar would reveal that they're grammatically identical.

mu'o mi'e .adam.