From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Jul 17 10:46:23 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_2_0); 17 Jul 2001 17:46:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 4469 invoked from network); 17 Jul 2001 17:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.27) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 17 Jul 2001 17:45:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO stmpy-5.cais.net) (205.252.14.75) by mta2 with SMTP; 17 Jul 2001 17:45:01 -0000 Received: from bob.lojban.org (169.dynamic.cais.com [207.226.56.169]) by stmpy-5.cais.net (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id f6HHitT15904 for ; Tue, 17 Jul 2001 13:44:56 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010717133637.00b16de0@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 13:49:02 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" At 04:57 PM 07/17/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote: >la and cusku di'e > >List of experimentals on my wishlist: > > > >1. In BAhE: next word begins nonstandard construction. > >I don't think it could be in BAhE. You want something that >will stop the parser from parsing what follows, but we don't >want {ba'e} to do that. Sounds like lo'u/le'u, with a convention that a certain word after the lo'u triggers whatever alternate construction. But this would be limited to things that could be expressed as sumti (or entire sentences, since a sumti can stand alone where a sentence would go) > >2. bridi-to-sumti converter > >Would something in selma'o LU do it? It could take more than a >bridi, but I often find that I want to put more than a bridi >inside a du'u. You can do that now: la'elu ...li'u > >7. forethought sumti-tail connectives [tho experimental usage > >of bridi-tail connectives as sumti-tail connectives would suffice?] > >I can't think of a context where {le ge broda gi brode} would >cause ambiguity. If it doesn't, I don't see why it should not >be allowed. The ambiguity is that anything that is a sumti-tail is also a full sentence (observative), and we have full sentence forethought connectives. It also isn't clear when you would use a forethought sumti tail connective wherein you couldn't use a sentence connective. 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