From jjllambias@hotmail.com Mon Dec 24 13:11:05 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_1_3); 24 Dec 2001 21:11:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 56561 invoked from network); 24 Dec 2001 21:11:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (216.115.97.171) by m11.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 24 Dec 2001 21:11:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.163) by mta3.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 24 Dec 2001 21:11:04 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 13:11:04 -0800 Received: from 24.232.1.206 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:11:04 GMT To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2001 21:11:04 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Dec 2001 21:11:04.0698 (UTC) FILETIME=[7F63E5A0:01C18CBF] From: "Jorge Llambias" X-Originating-IP: [24.232.1.206] X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=6071566 X-Yahoo-Profile: jjllambias2000 la ojbab cusku di'e > >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. That's right, therefore changing the order of precedence, because selbri tags must have precedence over sumti. You can still get the wanted precedence by making both parts sumti, but it is unnecessarily messy. >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. What ambiguity? {ze'u} is the interval of what follows. {reroi indicates that what follows occurs twice. {ze'u reroi} never means "in two long intervals", it always is "twice in a long interval". >My original design for the tense system allowed nesting intervals. Cowan's >redesign allows them with ku inserted between them. They're also allowed with {ja'a} inserted between them, but the point is not that we can't work around some way of expressing it, but rather that the obvious way of doing it is restricted for no reason. >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. Can you give a concrete example? Allowing ZEhAs as freely as ZAhOs and TAhEs does not seem to cause any problem. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com