From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Dec 24 05:56:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 24 Dec 2001 13:56:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 58154 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2001 13:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172) by m5.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2001 13:56:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.46) by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2001 13:56:45 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 05:56:45 -0800 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:56:45 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:56:45 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Dec 2001 13:56:45.0925 (UTC) FILETIME=[D326B150:01C18C82] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la adam cusku di'e >la rab.spir. cusku di'e > > > 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) I think the only bogus splits are ZAhO-TAhE, UI-CAI and Y-DAhO-FUhO. >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. I still think it would be tidier to use just one name, even if you keep them as separate groups within the selma'o for other purposes (the way UIs and PAs for example are grouped into different classes). But that's not a big problem, I can think of TAhEs as being in selmaho ZAhO and I will still be using the same grammar. The problem are the actual restrictions. For example, ZEhA must always come before ZAhO/TAhE/numberROI in a tense compound. But something like {ze'u reroi ze'i} "long-interval twice short-interval" would be perfectly meaningful. Indeed, you can say "long-interval twice three-times", but not "long-interval twice short-interval three-times". We can only talk of the size of the total interval, not of the sub-intervals. Why is not ZEhA at the same level as ZAhO/TAhE/numberROI? We are forced to learn more rules (that ZEhA always comes before those) and we are restricted from saying something that would be meaningful. What is the advantage of the restriction? mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com