From lojban-out@lojban.org Tue Oct 01 18:33:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojban-out@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_1_1_4); 2 Oct 2002 01:33:02 -0000 Received: (qmail 65922 invoked from network); 2 Oct 2002 01:33:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m8.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 2 Oct 2002 01:33:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO digitalkingdom.org) (204.152.186.175) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 2 Oct 2002 01:33:02 -0000 Received: from lojban-out by digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.05) id 17wYQs-0001St-00 for lojban@yahoogroups.com; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:36:10 -0700 Received: from digitalkingdom.org ([204.152.186.175] helo=chain) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wYQB-0001Sa-00; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:35:27 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list lojban-list); Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:35:27 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com ([66.68.125.184] ident=root) by digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.05) id 17wYQ8-0001SR-00 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:35:24 -0700 Received: from cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (asdf@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3) with ESMTP id g921dVGZ073003 for ; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:39:31 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from fracture@cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com) Received: (from fracture@localhost) by cs6668125-184.austin.rr.com (8.12.3/8.12.3/Submit) id g921dVOX073002 for lojban-list@lojban.org; Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:39:31 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:39:31 -0500 To: lojban-list@lojban.org Subject: [lojban] Re: tu'o du'u (was Re: xoi'a) Message-ID: <20021002013931.GA72924@allusion.net> References: <20021002011500.GA72604@allusion.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4i X-archive-position: 1805 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: lojban-list-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: fracture@allusion.net Precedence: bulk X-list: lojban-list X-eGroups-From: Jordan DeLong From: Jordan DeLong Reply-To: fracture@allusion.net X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=116389790 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojban_out --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 02:17:39AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > Jordan: > > On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 01:58:55AM +0100, And Rosta wrote: > > [...] > > > (I do wish {tu'o du'u} could be reduced to one syllable. It'd be the > > > ultimate Zipfean saving. Are there any monosyllables still going > > > spare?) > >=20 > > Errr; doesn't it need to be said a lot to justify that? No offense > > intended, but I've never seen anyone say it except you (I think it > > was the wiki page for poi'i). I'm not even sure what an unspecified > > number of du'us means that is different from the assumed default of > > su'opa if you were to say "lo du'u", "le du'u", or "lo'e du'u". >=20 > Other jboskepre have used "tu'o du'u", but the abbreviation could > equally well be short for "lo'e du'u". >=20 > If I'd been designing Lojban syntax I'd allow a selbri to function I assume you meant "bridi". > as a sumti ("mi djuno lo'e du'u do klama" =3D> "djuno mi klama do"), > but given the constraints of Lojban grammar it would be nice to > be able to reduce it to "mi djuno XOI do klama", where XOI is short > for lo'e du'u. I don't see how you could possibly allow "djuno mi klama do" parse "mi klama do" as a sumti without having an ambigious grammar. How's the reader to know it's not djuno mi [klama do] or [djuno] mi klama do, etc. Oh I guess you're suggesting using only prefix notation for the predicates, so "mi djuno" isn't valid? While that would be more like normal predicate logic notations I don't think it fits well with (very useful) things like bridi tail connectives. > {le du'u} is used a lot by everybody (though {le} is not really > appropriate there), and many uses of {le nu} should have {du'u} > instead (though maybe usage is improving in this regard?). Sure, many uses of "le nu" should be something like "lo'e nu" or "lo nu" or whatnot. But I can't think of an example of an incorrect "le" with du'u like you're talking about. Did you have something in mind? mu'o --=20 Jordan DeLong - fracture@allusion.net lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u sei la mark. tuen. cusku --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE9mk5TDrrilS51AZ8RAoLuAJ9Vb3icWHmXYQT0XnpYPqa5xZvgPwCgvWUa LryBOfLUBuPWQn+h6wssLww= =6Qrc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --VS++wcV0S1rZb1Fb--