Talk:BPFK Section: Indirect Referers

From Lojban
Jump to: navigation, search
Posted by pycyn on Fri 06 of Aug., 2004 23:43 GMT posts: 2388

There were way too many programmers in the development of Loglan/Lojban; only computer languages use these critters enough to give them the right to these handy forms. Of course, that is partly because ordinary languages regularly ignore some of the distinctions involved, so a logical language ought to provide for these. And of course it does, with ordinary sumti built on {sinxa} and {cmima} and the like. Of the lot, {li} seems the most likely to be of regular use. {la'e} seems to occur almost exclusively with pronouns referring to recent or near future utterances, which combinations probably deserve pronouns of their own rather than compounds, both elements of which see little independent activity. Did we start to take plurals seriously (or systematically, if you think we already are serious about them), the ones for moving into and out of groups might serve to give the distributivity of occurrences of sumti not covered by other conventions and so come to some prominence. The rest are of dubious value altogether and could easily be dropped, just as some of the useful ones would be better in other categories.

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by xorxes on Sat 07 of Aug., 2004 03:06 GMT posts: 1912

pc: > {la'e} seems to occur almost exclusively with pronouns referring to recent or > near future utterances, which combinations probably deserve pronouns of their > own rather than compounds, both elements of which see little independent > activity.

Indeed. I would like to recycle {tei} and {tau} for {la'e di'u} and {la'e de'u} or {la'e do'i}, which would sort of fit with the {ti/ta/tu} series.

> Did we start to take plurals seriously (or systematically, if you think we > already are serious about them), the ones for moving into and out of groups > might serve to give the distributivity of occurrences of sumti not covered by > other conventions and so come to some prominence.

Yes, except we don't have the LAhEs corresponding to jo'u (and to fa'u for that matter). The system is full of holes:

ce - lo'i - lu'i ce'o - XXX - vu'i joi - loi - lu'o jo'u - lo - lu'a? fa'u - XXX - XXX e - ro - ro lu'a? a - su'o - su'o lu'a? onai - pa - pa lu'a?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers! http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

rlpowellPosted by rlpowell on Tue 10 of Aug., 2004 23:35 GMT posts: 14214

On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 05:19:49PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > pc: > > {la'e} seems to occur almost exclusively with pronouns referring to > > recent or near future utterances, which combinations probably > > deserve pronouns of their own rather than compounds, both elements > > of which see little independent activity. > > Indeed. I would like to recycle {tei} and {tau}

I'm one page into ctununta'a, and I've used tau half a dozen times.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by pycyn on Wed 11 of Aug., 2004 13:23 GMT posts: 2388

OK, so we need them — at least {tau} — in mekso. That hardly justifies the proliferation of them. The idea is not to eliminate them, but to reduce them to a less onerous number availabe to be set for whatever purpose is at hand. Let mre know when you have had to use more than half a dozen (or, indeed, more than {tau}). But I suppose we need to add this to the list of uses and make it the most likely one at that.

Robin Lee Powell wrote: On Fri, Aug 06, 2004 at 05:19:49PM -0700, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > pc: > > {la'e} seems to occur almost exclusively with pronouns referring to > > recent or near future utterances, which combinations probably > > deserve pronouns of their own rather than compounds, both elements > > of which see little independent activity. > > Indeed. I would like to recycle {tei} and {tau}

I'm one page into ctununta'a, and I've used tau half a dozen times.

-Robin

Score: 0.00 Vote:
1 2 3 4 5
top of page

Posted by Anonymous on Tue 11 of Jan., 2005 23:11 GMT

Re: BPFK Section: Indirect Referers There were way too many programmers in the development of Loglan/Lojban; only computer languages use these critters enough to give them the right to these handy forms. Of course, that is partly because ordinary languages regularly ignore some of the distinctions involved, so a logical language ought to provide for these. And of course it does, with ordinary sumti built on {sinxa} and {cmima} and the like. Of the lot, {li} seems the most likely to be of regular use. {la'e} seems to occur almost exclusively with pronouns referring to recent or near future utterances, which combinations probably deserve pronouns of their own rather than compounds, both elements of which see little independent activity. Did we start to take plurals seriously (or systematically, if you think we already are serious about them), the ones for moving into and out of groups might serve to give the distributivity of occurrences of sumti not covered by other conventions and so come to some prominence. The rest are of dubious value altogether and could easily be dropped, just as some of the useful ones would be better in other categories.