From pycyn@aol.com Tue Mar 12 10:54:23 2002
Return-Path: <Pycyn@aol.com>
X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com
X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
Received: (EGP: unknown); 12 Mar 2002 18:54:23 -0000
Received: (qmail 1278 invoked from network); 12 Mar 2002 18:54:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (216.115.97.172)
  by m10.grp.snv.yahoo.com with QMQP; 12 Mar 2002 18:54:21 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO imo-d09.mx.aol.com) (205.188.157.41)
  by mta2.grp.snv.yahoo.com with SMTP; 12 Mar 2002 18:54:21 -0000
Received: from Pycyn@aol.com
  by imo-d09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.a.1b73db0b (16932)
  for <lojban@yahoogroups.com>; Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:53:50 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <a.1b73db0b.29bfa8be@aol.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 13:53:50 EST
Subject: Re: [lojban] More about quantifiers
To: lojban@yahoogroups.com
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_a.1b73db0b.29bfa8be_boundary"
X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 118
From: pycyn@aol.com
X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001
X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra

--part1_a.1b73db0b.29bfa8be_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 3/12/2002 12:18:36 PM Central Standard Time, 
jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:


> The {lo su'o broda} forms in my system are just convenient
> shortcuts. The full fledged forms will add {ganai da broda gi}
> in front of the corresponding + form.
> 

Now that is mucky. But it saves you yet another rule although at extreme 
cost.

<The "exchange {Q da poi broda} and {Q broda}" bit is the ugly
step for me. When {broda} is a complex bridi, this may mean
adding lots of be-bei's and possibly having to do internal
rearrangments if {ke'a} is not the first sumti. It sounds like
a simple rule, but in practice it is not. It removes the
freedom to use the {poi} form as a stylistic variant, which
is all it is in my version.>

The predicate sumti - description sumti interchange is pretty automatic; 
shifting order would be a bit more complicated, but still falls under a 
straightforward rule. It may call for some further work. Or, if it gets to 
awful, we can leave the negation form unreduced, as you do in two cases.

<>I think that extra effort is worth it to be able to tell
>at a glance that a setence has existential import.

I'm not sure it buys you even that. Just hide a negation a
bit and at least for me it is not something you can tell at
a glance:

no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi

Does that have existential import for brode? Can you really
tell at a glance?>

You have constructed a case where I have to stop and think a bit. But in 
your system, I always have to stop and think -- in fact recall the whole 
table to figure where this form fits in. To be sure, the prefixes forms 
would help, but are unwieldy (to be polite).




--part1_a.1b73db0b.29bfa8be_boundary
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2>In a message dated 3/12/2002 12:18:36 PM Central Standard Time, jjllambias@hotmail.com writes:<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">The {lo su'o broda} forms in my system are just convenient<BR>
shortcuts. The full fledged forms will add {ganai da broda gi}<BR>
in front of the corresponding + form.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
<BR>
Now that is mucky. But it saves you yet another rule although at extreme cost.<BR>
<BR>
&lt;The "exchange {Q da poi broda} and {Q broda}" bit is the ugly<BR>
step for me. When {broda} is a complex bridi, this may mean<BR>
adding lots of be-bei's and possibly having to do internal<BR>
rearrangments if {ke'a} is not the first sumti. It sounds like<BR>
a simple rule, but in practice it is not. It removes the<BR>
freedom to use the {poi} form as a stylistic variant, which<BR>
is all it is in my version.&gt;<BR>
<BR>
The predicate sumti - description sumti interchange is pretty automatic; shifting order would be a bit more complicated, but still falls under a straightforward rule.&nbsp; It may call for some further work.&nbsp; Or, if it gets to awful, we can leave the negation form unreduced, as you do in two cases.<BR>
<BR>
&lt;&gt;I think that extra effort is worth it to be able to tell<BR>
&gt;at a glance that a setence has existential import.<BR>
<BR>
I'm not sure it buys you even that. Just hide a negation a<BR>
bit and at least for me it is not something you can tell at<BR>
a glance:<BR>
<BR>
&nbsp;&nbsp; no broda me'iro da poi brode cu brodi<BR>
<BR>
Does that have existential import for brode? Can you really<BR>
tell at a glance?&gt;<BR>
<BR>
You have constructed a case where I have to stop and think a bit.&nbsp; But in your system, I always have to stop and think -- in fact recall the whole table to figure where this form fits in.&nbsp; To be sure, the prefixes forms would help, but are unwieldy (to be polite).<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT></HTML>
--part1_a.1b73db0b.29bfa8be_boundary--

