From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Jul 16 21:01:43 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 04:01:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 92669 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 04:01:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l7.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 04:01:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-2.cais.net) (205.252.14.72) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 04:01:42 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (47.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.47]) by stmpy-2.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6H41eF90731 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:01:40 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010716234526.00c28580@127.0.0.1> X-Sender: vir1036/pop.cais.com@127.0.0.1 X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 00:05:47 -0400 To: Subject: Re: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo In-Reply-To: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 05:51 PM 07/16/2001 -0600, Jay Kominek wrote: >On Tue, 17 Jul 2001, And Rosta wrote: > > B. Can experimental cmavo belong to experimental selmaho and > > hence can there be experimental grammatical structures? > >The grammar is supposed to be fixed and unchanging for the time being, >isn't it? So's the lexicon, except that we left a set of words undefined. I don't think we had a clear idea that they would be systematically defined and logged for experimentation because recording them in a definite reference may be tantamount to making them official (I am not under the illusion any more that only LLG could publish a Lojban dictionary that would be accepted by the masses as if it were official). > > 1. In BAhE: next word begins nonstandard construction. > >How does the different from ba'e? If you're referring to an entire >nonstandard grammatical construct, then how does the listener know where >it ends? The only ways to introduce a non-standard grammar concept is to introduce a non-standard (unofficial) YACC grammar (or maybe BNF grammar in the hopes that someone can make it work in YACC) that includes it, or to abandon pretense that one is attempting to speak in a grammatically unambiguous language. > > 4. takes cmevla as complement and yields da-series KOhA, allowing > > bare cmevla to function as da-series KOhA thereafter. daxipa goi la djan > > 5. takes cmevla as complement and yields ko'a-series KOhA, allowing > > bare cmevla to function as ko'a-series KOhA thereafter. ko'axipa goi la djan though >Whats wrong with the la? la djan certainly can be used as a ko'a without explicitly assigning it as I did. > > 6. In SE: fill places from x2/x3/x4/x5 onwards with zi'o And seems mostly to be asking for short forms of things one can already do in the language. I think that there is little point in bothering to come up with short forms before we see that people are using the long versions for something. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org 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