From cowan@ccil.org Mon Jul 16 17:46:28 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: cowan@mercury.ccil.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 00:46:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 12020 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 00:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 00:46:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mercury.ccil.org) (192.190.237.100) by mta1 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 00:46:27 -0000 Received: from cowan by mercury.ccil.org with local (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 15MJ1A-0006Q4-00 for ; Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:47:16 -0400 Subject: Re: [lojban] questions about DOI & cmene In-Reply-To: from And Rosta at "Jul 17, 2001 00:35:23 am" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:47:16 -0400 (EDT) X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL66 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: X-eGroups-From: John Cowan From: John Cowan And Rosta scripsit: > My point is that that all the veridical relativizers should have > nonveridical counterparts, and voi is ambiguous between nonveridical > noi and nonveridical voi. It is definitely poi, as it was designed to provide a relative-clause equivalent of le, to wit, da voi. Voi was added very late, and I decided that nonveridical incidental relative clauses were not important enough to support with a special syntax. In general, incidental relative clauses are really just a specialized sort of parenthetical remark, and had I known just how rare it is to make this distinction in the world's languages, I would have lobbied for noi and no'u to be removed. > > Because "sali" is neither a cmene ending in a consonant nor a brivla, and > > therefore it is ungrammatical. > > I'll take your word for it. Actually not ungrammatical. "la sa li" eradicates back to the last article, and then substitutes "li" for it. > > Indeed sali breaks into two words, so the listener might take that string > > as "la sa li". > > This seems a bogus argument, since it applies also to licit cmene, such > as "la salis." Not so. To identify words in a Lojban stream, one first divides it into breath-groups (separated by "."). If a breath-group ends in a consonant, then everything back to but not including the most recently preceding "la", "lai", or "doi", or the beginning of the breath-group, is a cmevla. The rest of the breath-group, if any, is then broken up left-to-right. Thus "lasa.lis" would be (ungrammatical) "la sa lis", but "lasalis." is unambiguously "la salis". > I didn't know that unmarked vocatives were allowed, They currently are not, except as a whole text (utterance? I forget). > [W]e could have permitted anything to occur as a LA cmene, not that > everything ending in a pause would be a cmevla. We could have done that, yes. -- John Cowan cowan@ccil.org One art/there is/no less/no more/All things/to do/with sparks/galore --Douglas Hofstadter