From jjllambias@hotmail.com Tue Apr 10 18:07:37 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@onelist.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_1); 11 Apr 2001 01:07:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 87597 invoked from network); 11 Apr 2001 01:07:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 11 Apr 2001 01:07:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.65) by mta3 with SMTP; 11 Apr 2001 02:08:40 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:07:36 -0700 Received: from 200.41.210.3 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:07:36 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.41.210.3] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] A set of questions Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 01:07:36 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 11 Apr 2001 01:07:36.0412 (UTC) FILETIME=[CBBC19C0:01C0C223] From: "Jorge Llambias" la Avital cusku di'e >2) Why are there no incidental clause counterparts for po and po'e, as >there >are for pe and po'u? This doesn't bother me much because {po} and {po'e} are both in my list of "cmavo you should never use". It is hard to come up with a place where {po'e} would be of use, since something like {le birka po'e mi} is much more clumsy than {le birka be mi}. And I don't really understand what the pe/po distinction is. >3) Why are there no non-veridical counterparts for almost any restrictive >clause? How would you use them? There is nothing really "veridical" about pe/po/po'e in themselves, you can attach a le or a lo sumti to any of them. (They are not usually "clauses" either, that's just one more of Lojban's many misnomers.) >4) Why are there no non-veridical incidental clauses? I don't see how a non-veridical counterpart of {noi} would work either. To me non-veridicality can only work in a context of definiteness, and {noi} doesn't provide that. >6) What is the difference between le ramei prenu, le prenu ramei and le re >prenu? {le remei prenu} is "each of the pair-persons". Each one is a person. {le prenu remei} is "each of the person-pairs". Each one is a pair. {le re prenu} is "each of the two persons". Each one is a person and there are two of them. >Is PA+mei really used other than as the single brivla in a selbri? How else could it be used? It is a single brivla! >7) Can/How can pe, po, po'u be 'defined' using only poi? (Would be >?) That's in the book: pe = poi ke'a srana po = poi ke'a se steci srana po'e = poi ke'a jinzi ke se steci srana {steci} is too vague in those tanru to really help me in deciding when {po} would be appropriate. Clearly if {po} is appropriate so is {pe}, so I simplify and always use {pe}. The book clearly specifies that {po} should not be associated with {ponse}. >8) Why is ke'a needed? Why not always state that after a NOI clause, the >x1 of the clause bridi is ke'a, and if needed for any other places, you >can use ke'a? The x1 sometimes is filled. The usual understanding is that an implicit {ke'a} goes in the first empty slot. The same rule applies to {ce'u} for properties. >10) Is there any way to generate 'generic parenthesis', which could be >used whenever one doesn't remember exactly how to group that type, or so >forth? Some type of way to group tanru, and logical connectives, and >non-logical connectives, and mekso, and...? No, it wouldn't parse. If some way to do that had been found, what would be the point of having specific parenthesis? But don't worry, brackets are hardly ever needed in practice, at least in my experience. (Except for the parenthetical comment to-toi kind.) >11) Is there any method to do something like intersectino of two >tenses? How would I translate "Was he here today?"? As I see it, that >would mean intersecting the time of 'pu' with the time of 'ca say current day>'. Yes, that would be {xu ko'a pu zvati ca le cabdei}. >12) Why is there no generic way to say "during the next occurence of X"? Yes, "next" is another of those useful and seemingly still missing little words. {za'ure'u} and {za'umoi} are possibilities, but they would of course be idiomatic. Maybe something better will come up. >I >think using ca le bavlamdei is quite ugly, especially when you want to do >some more complex things, like next week, {ca le bavlamjeftu} >next week+3 days, in 2 days, 4 >days ago, ...? I think that hence/ago is a different issue. I simply say {za lo djedi be li re} {za lo djedi be li vo}, which works for distance from the reference point in either direction, {pu} or {ba} indicate which one. >I'd expect there to be a cmavo stating "N occurences of X >from now" or something. {mu re'u} is "the 5th occurence", so you can say {mure'u ze'aba}, "the 5th time in the interval extending to the future". >14) What's the difference between do'e and pe? They have different functions. {do'e} adds a place to a selbri, while {pe} is used to modify a sumti by another sumti. co'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.