Subject: Re: [lojban] Logical translation request

From: "Jorge Llambias" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 22:46:48

la lojbab cusku di'e

>And reroi ze'u?

Two long events.

>reroi ze'u ciroi?

Two long events, each of which consists of three occasions.

>reroi ze'u ciroi ze'i?

Two long events each of which consists of three short occasions.

>Sounds like you want default right-grouping, which IIRC was hard to manage
>in YACC.

But that's how it already works! Look at the examples of the Book,
like {di'i co'a} on page 229 or {pare'u paroi} and {paroi pare'u}
on page 230.

> >Can you give a concrete example? Allowing ZEhAs as freely as
> >ZAhOs and TAhEs does not seem to cause any problem.
>
>I don't think ZAhOs and TAhEs are all that free. They are interval
>properties and either stand on their own or come after a ZEhA.

They combine freely among themselves.

>Given totally free order, you can create a jumble such as "reroi za'o ciroi
>ba'o ta'e ze'u ze'a ta'e pu'o ze'i paroi"

"Twice three times too many having been for a long medium time
about to do it once in a short time." If you remove the
ZEhAs, that's already allowed. Hard to understand, of course, but
no ambiguity.

>There may be a structure implied in that, but I wouldn't try to guess it.

Of course piling up such a big number will be hard to figure out,
but it is meaningful. Try it with two or three at a time and it is
easy. And the ZEhA restriction does nothing to alleviate the already
grammatical {reroi za'o ciroi ba'o ta'e ta'e pu'o paroi}. Probably
any combination of more than two or three will always be hard to
work out on the fly, but there is no reason to exclude combinations
with ZEhAs while allowing the rest. Your arguments against a more
free ZEhA apply equally to the current system.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com