From Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Fri Apr 13 10:43:45 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 13 Apr 2001 17:43:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 81358 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2001 17:43:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 13 Apr 2001 17:43:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO fh.egroups.com) (10.1.2.135) by mta1 with SMTP; 13 Apr 2001 17:43:44 -0000 X-eGroups-Return: Ti@fa-kuan.muc.de Received: from [10.1.10.102] by fh.egroups.com with NNFMP; 13 Apr 2001 17:43:43 -0000 Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 17:43:38 -0000 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: FA tagging Message-ID: <9b7dsb+inq0@eGroups.com> In-Reply-To: User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Length: 1831 X-Mailer: eGroups Message Poster X-Originating-IP: 193.149.49.79 From: "A.W.T." --- In lojban@y..., pycyn@a... wrote: > In a message dated 4/13/2001 5:05:37 AM Central Daylight Time,=20 > Ti@f... writes: >=20 >=20 > > My conclusion from this still is: It is not explicitely disallowed to f= =3D=0D orce=20 > > a sumti out of its (non-tagged!) place by a FA tagged sumti=20 > > (coming afterwards) claiming this place, unless that sumti coming first= =3D=0D =20 > > claims its place by the same tag (which then causes the=20 > > competing sumtis to share the place). > >=20 > Yes, that is a *possible* reading, but not one that is likely to carry th= =3D=0D e=20 > day, since it requires reassigning a sumti to a place after the fact,=20 > something we have hesitated to do on other occasions (negations are about= =3D=0D the=20 > only significant piece we can mess around with that way and they are such= =3D=0D =20 > high level items that they don't require a lot of internal reworking). = =20 > Imagine working out a whole sentence, then finding a {fa} tag and having = =3D=0D to=20 > shift every sumti one place right and reconstrue! My own personal prefer= =3D=0D ence=20 > is to disallow tags for places already taken, that is to anticipate place= =3D=0D s=20 > but not to delay them, unless another tag has apppeared to skip over the = =3D=0D > later place. I don't think that can be a grammar rule without a lot of=20 > problems, but it sure is a stylistic one I'd come down heavy for. Gut gebr=FCllt, L=F6we! (Roared well, lion!) ;-) I totally share your opinion - yet, also your last words! There's indeed a = =3D=0D tension between (future) machine readability and stylistic=20 (first of all poetic) freedom! Wish all of you Happy Easter/Pessah celebrations! Frohe Ostern! Hristos a-nviat! Christos woskresje! Boldog h=FAsv=E9ti =FCnnepeket kiv=E1nok minden=FCknek! =D8=A8=B1z=A5_=A8=B0*`=DF=F7=BA=F7! (juh nin fuh hwo jier kuay leh!) Buon Pasqua! la nunrefyji'e ba se gleki roko! .aulun.=20