From araizen@newmail.net Wed Apr 10 13:31:28 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: araizen@newmail.net X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 10 Apr 2002 20:31:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 38082 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2002 20:31:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m6.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 10 Apr 2002 20:31:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mxout2.netvision.net.il) (194.90.9.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 10 Apr 2002 20:31:27 -0000 Received: from default ([62.0.183.167]) by mxout2.netvision.net.il (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built Sep 5 2001)) with SMTP id <0GUD00BDSD0CC0@mxout2.netvision.net.il> for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:31:26 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 10 Apr 2002 23:35:06 +0200 Subject: Re: [lojban] ce'u once again To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Message-id: <006401c1e0d7$a17d04c0$a7b7003e@default> MIME-version: 1.0 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-priority: Normal References: <130.c7b7503.29e5e9e9@aol.com> From: Adam Raizen X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=3063669 X-Yahoo-Profile: araizen la pycyn. cusku di'e > > I agree that logically the two constructions are identical, but this > > is a grammatical rule dictated by the grammatical structure, and not a > > logical rule > But of course one expects that the grammatical structure of a Logical > Language is dictated by the logic, not by whatever it is that leads to these > anomalies. It is to be expected that, for example, nominal bridis have (I > would say "retain") some marks that sentential and predicate bridis have lost > (or conversely, of course), but beyond that, it is hard to see the point of > the distinctions and for the different restrictions applied. Well, I'm not sure that this is the type of logic that's at the heart of a Logical Language, it's more like simplicity and analogousness. At any rate, Lojban is hardly a perfect loglan, the addition of this feature will have to wait for the next generation. > <. In particular, since you can say 'ko'a poi broda gi'e > brode' but not 'le broda gi'e brode', I think that the two structures > are significantly different.> > > Why, so it does work out! They are certainly different (we have two cases so > far today) but what is the significance of the difference? That is -- > minimally -- what forces these differences to be a part of the grammar rather > than allowing the apparently simpler direct rule (I have been asking this > question in one form or another for 26 years now, without ever getting a > reasonable answer, so don't worry if you can't think of one)? Probably analogy to English grammar and lack of thoughly thinking it through. > I would support putting an entire bridi after 'le', but we're not and > that can't be changed now.> > > Well, we would leave off (or replace with LE) the first term (or a selected > term,, using {ke'a} or the like). I know it can't be changed (it is perhaps > the deepest point in Lojban) and don't really want it changed. I just want > it explained. There are other problems; if 'le' is followed by a bridi, then the sumti would almost always need an explicit terminator, to avoid swallowing the next sumti, but it might be possible to work something out. mu'o mi'e .adam.