Subject: RE: [lojban] za'e "postnex"

From: Robert LeChevalier <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 20:43:18 -0500

At 04:46 PM 1/24/03 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > It may require some conventions (grammatical scope being undefined for
> > afterthought structures). But predefined conventions are good, even when
> > unofficial, in that they eliminate the need to glork from context. (this
> > is not to say that >I< will always approve of them)
>
>Unofficial conventions that conflict with official ones must not be
>countenanced except as part of an intentionally nonstandard dialect.

There are no official conventions on the interpretation of metalinguistic 
bridi or parenthetical comments, on the scope of the di'u family of "text" 
references, to my knowledge. Indeed we explicitly expected that these 
would be used to establish special conventions that override the standards 
(the best example of this is the use of operator precedence marking to 
override the MEX parse groupings - the result of parsing will be a 
grammatical grouping but specifying precedence overrides interpretation in 
accordance with the grammatical parse)

>The official interpretation of your examples is known, and should
>not be subverted by unofficial conventions. The place for establishing
>unofficial conventions in in the experimental cmavo, such as zo'au.

Or in metalinguistic comments expressed solely in Lojban.

-- 
lojbab [email-masked]
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org