Subject: Re: [lojban] registry of experimental cmavo

From: "Bob LeChevalier (lojbab)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:07:23 -0400

At 08:41 PM 07/17/2001 +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > >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.

This was a partial brain fart on my part. And's question suggested using 
bridi-tail connection for sumti tail connection, but it is bridi-tail 
connection that is ambiguous for the reason I stated. It appears that, 
limited ONLY to sumti-tails, there might be no ambiguity in forethought 
connection. Unfortunately I no longer have the capability to check the 
full grammar, much less a modification thereof, since PCYACC, which did the 
meat of the Lojban grammar development, overflows on grammar.300. But a 
somewhat stripped grammar seems to continue to work with GEK sumti_tail_111 
GIK sumtitail_111. In any event, with the grammar baselined, it doesn't 
matter.

>It also
> >isn't clear when you would use a forethought sumti tail connective wherein
> >you couldn't use a sentence connective.
>
>I don't understand that sentence. Could you give an example?

Continuing the brain fart, since I had bridi-tail and sumti-tail mixed in 
my mind.

lojbab
--
lojbab [email-masked]
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