From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Dec 24 09:22:46 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 24 Dec 2001 17:22:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 69538 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2001 17:22:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m12.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2001 17:22:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2001 17:22:45 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (134.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.134]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id fBOHMhW91831 for ; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:22:43 -0500 (EST) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011224121333.00e75930@pop.cais.com> X-Sender: vir1036@pop.cais.com X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 12:21:47 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 01:56 PM 12/24/01 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: > >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). The UI and PA groupings were put in for my convenience in sorting the list for some particular use that I've long forgotten; I never intended them to be official. >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. It's also legal, but the grammar will stick in a ku after the reroi. If it did not, and the intervals and properties could be in any order, then there would be an ambiguity between ze'u reroi [ku] ze'i and ze'u [ku] reroi ze'i. > 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. My original design for the tense system allowed nesting intervals. Cowan's redesign allows them with ku inserted between them. >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? Strict ordering of tense components allows complex tenses with ellipsis of unspecified components and you know what has been left out at the time it is skipped. 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