Talk:BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives
> !! Examples of ba'e Usage > > The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u > with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be > pathological.
"lo'u...le'u"?
> ko pensi depsna ba'e bu > Think about "hesitation sound" AS A LETTER. > > ko pensi lo depsna .e zo ba'e bu > Think about the hesitation sound, and the emphasis letter.
These presumably need a {ma'o}.
> lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei cinmo cu nandu > Explaning the emphasis-emotion is difficult.
Wouldn't that be the emphasis-emoter?
> The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u > with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be > pathological. > > da zei fa'o cu mutce cizra lujvo > "da type-of fa'o" is a very strange lujvo.
lu da zei fa'o li'u
> mi cusku .ui zei nai bu > I wrote a frowny face. > Literally "happy type-of not letter".
cusku -> ciska
Prsumably {ma'o ui zei nai bu}.
> zo bu zei sa si zo bu zei su cu mupli > "bu type-of sa", I mean, "bu type-of su" is an example.
lu zo bu zei sa si zo bu zei su li'u
> !! Proposed Definition of xi > > ;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the following > number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used almost anywhere, but > is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical expressions.
I think we should specify "almost anywhere".
Indicators attach to the immediately preceding word, unless it belongs to a magic word construct, in which case it attaches to the whole construct:
(zo da) ui (da zei de) ui (da bu) ui (lo'u ... le'u) ui (zoi da ... da) ui
If the immediately preceding word is a si/sa/su the indicator will skip the erased construct, if it's BAhE, BAhE acts first and the whole thing acts as an indicator towards its preceding word/construct.
Those restrictions all follow from left to right processing, so they are easy to remember. But free modifiers have additional restrictions, which are harder to remember.
I don't know if this list is complete:
1- They can't come between two CMENE 2- They can't come between two NIhO's 3- They can't come between I and BO in {I joikstag BO} 4- They can't come between I and joik-jek in {I joik-jek} 5- They can't come between NAhE and BO in {NAhE BO} 6- They can't come between GOhA and RAhO in {GOhA RAhO} 7- They can't come between NU and NAI in {NU NAI} 8- They can't come between digits/lerfu in a number or lerfu-string 9- They can't come between components of a connective e.g. {NA SE A NAI} 10- They can't come after a full connective in some contexts 11- They can't come between components of a compound tag 12- They can't come after a full tag in some contexts 13- They can't come after COI or DOI
Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even though we probably won't want to use them in any of these places very often, it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers behaved just like indicators as much as possible.
> * A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no ideas are > coming to mind.
XI NAI was proposed for this.
> ! Impact > > * ba'e can no longer be attached to zei or bu on the left (or anything else > on the left, for that matter) without using zo.
"Attached" here means that it can't be used by those words. BAhE itself can do its thing to them.
> * zei structures are now a single word.
For the purposes of following magic words. (Not for preceding magic words.)
> ! Proposed New cmavo > > * Another member of ZEI with reverse-order modified-modifier semantics. > ** The shepherd doesn't consider this terribly important, but it certainly > would help match the rest of the language, which is very configurable.
Ordinary lujvo would use -col- for this, so there's always {... zei co zei ...}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > !! Proposed Definition of xi > > > > ;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the > > following number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used > > almost anywhere, but is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical > > expressions. > > I think we should specify "almost anywhere".
Will respond to rest later, but I think that's a VERY BAD IDEA.
XI is part of free. I count 71 relevant instances of free in grammar.300
Even in the relatively simple (for this purpose) PEG grammar, I count 54 lines with free in them, for a total of 135 actual instances.
We can try to define all the places they are useful, but that's a very different thing.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
> > > I think we should specify "almost anywhere". > > Will respond to rest later, but I think that's a VERY BAD IDEA. > > XI is part of free. I count 71 relevant instances of free in > grammar.300
Of course, it's easier to specify it by saying where it is NOT allowed. That's why I made the list.
> Even in the relatively simple (for this purpose) PEG grammar, I > count 54 lines with free in them, for a total of 135 actual > instances. > > We can try to define all the places they are useful, but that's a > very different thing.
I'd like to be able to learn the language in full. That means knowing exactly where free modifiers can be used without having to go and look at the formal grammar. That's why I want the grammar to be as simple as possible, so it can be learned in full. When a free modifier cannot be used in some place, it is easier to learn the rule if it comes with a reason other than that it just can't. The rules for where indicators can or cannot be used are fairly straightforward. The rules for free modifiers are not.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:
> Indicators attach to the immediately preceding word,
Semantically, though, an indicator on a terminator refers to the entire terminated construct.
> Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even though > we probably won't want to use them in any of these places very often, > it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers behaved just > like indicators as much as possible.
I absolutely agree. If we are going to PEGylate Lojban, I would be very much in favor of removing the arbitrary restrictions on freemods to make them as grammar-free as possible. The long-term trend during periods of grammar development was to make them show up in as many places as yacc would permit, and the more the merrier.
(Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI clauses embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.)
> Ordinary lujvo would use -col- for this, so there's always > {... zei co zei ...}.
+1
--
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme): [email protected]
One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically http://www.reutershealth.com
Challenges poets who / Don't have the time. --robison who's at texas dot net
> Jorge Llamb�as scripsit: > > > Indicators attach to the immediately preceding word, > > Semantically, though, an indicator on a terminator refers to the entire > terminated construct.
Right. I had written "indicators modify the immediately preceding word" but changed to "attach to" because of that. Not only terminators work like that. For example {le ji'a broda} is supposedly the same as {le broda ku ji'a}. So "which constructs can an indicator modify?" is a different question from "which words can an indicator attach to?".
> > Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even though > > we probably won't want to use them in any of these places very often, > > it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers behaved just > > like indicators as much as possible. > > I absolutely agree. If we are going to PEGylate Lojban, I would be > very much in favor of removing the arbitrary restrictions on freemods > to make them as grammar-free as possible. The long-term trend during > periods of grammar development was to make them show up in as many > places as yacc would permit, and the more the merrier. > > (Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI clauses > embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.)
In fact, that one would seem to be the only limitation required. All other free modifiers are bounded on both sides:
SEI.../SEhU/ SOI.../SEhU/ COI/DOI.../DOhU/ TO.../TOI/ XI.../BOI/ XI VEI.../VEhO/
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
> > (Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI clauses > > embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.) > > In fact, that one would seem to be the only limitation required. > All other free modifiers are bounded on both sides: > > SEI.../SEhU/ > SOI.../SEhU/ > COI/DOI.../DOhU/ > TO.../TOI/ > XI.../BOI/ > XI VEI.../VEhO/
Vocatives won't be embeddable inside another vocative before the DOI either, so that's two limitations.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Jorge "Llambías" wrote:
>>!! Examples of ba'e Usage >> >>The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u >>with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be >>pathological. >> >> >>ko pensi depsna ba'e bu >>Think about "hesitation sound" AS A LETTER. >> >>ko pensi lo depsna .e zo ba'e bu >>Think about the hesitation sound, and the emphasis letter. >> >> > >These presumably need a {ma'o}. > > You mean {me'o}. There's a lot of use/mention confusion when talking about letters. We need to remember that any BY (including any *-BU) is a variable/pronoun referring to something. {ba'e bu} might be more natural in a context like {mi viska cy.ebu} {ki'a .i pau do viska cy .e ma} {.i ke'u mi viska cy .e ba'e bu}--only if bu doesn't quote ba'e.
>>The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u >>with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be >>pathological. >> >>da zei fa'o cu mutce cizra lujvo >>"da type-of fa'o" is a very strange lujvo. >> >> > >lu da zei fa'o li'u > > In which case we're inside a lu/li'u and the question of whether zei quotes fa'o is a moot point, since we have fa'o quoted by lu/li'u.
Something like {le skami cu cusku lo skami zei fa'o mi}, "The computer emitted a computer-typeof-end-of-file at me". Stilted, but conceivable.
I note that allowing {zei} to skip over preceding {ba'e}s (i.e. {da ba'e zei de} means the same thing as {da zei de} except that the joining and new part-of-speech is emphasized) doesn't really lose us anything, since anything that {zei} could make with {ba'e} could almost certainly be made with {basna}.
>>mi cusku .ui zei nai bu >>I wrote a frowny face. >>Literally "happy type-of not letter". >> >> > >cusku -> ciska > >Prsumably {ma'o ui zei nai bu}. > > me'o again.
Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu? For that matter, is {.ui bu} different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?
>>!! Proposed Definition of xi >> >>;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the following >>number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used almost anywhere, but >>is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical expressions. >> >> > > > >>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no ideas are >>coming to mind. >> >> > >XI NAI was proposed for this. > > Isn't this kind of literal? "Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low; it just means this number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this particular instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI boys, etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways of attaching numbers to things.
>>! Impact >> >>* ba'e can no longer be attached to zei or bu on the left (or anything else >>on the left, for that matter) without using zo. >> >> > >"Attached" here means that it can't be used by those words. BAhE itself >can do its thing to them. > > I submit, as above, that this is no great loss. {basna zei ...} and {basna bu} can do approximately the same thing.
~mark
On Wednesday 17 November 2004 23:00, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > >>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no ideas are > >>coming to mind. > > > >XI NAI was proposed for this. > > Isn't this kind of literal? "Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low; > it just means this number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this > particular instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not > typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts > typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI boys, > etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways of > attaching numbers to things.
We should distinguish between the way 92 is attached to 'U' and the way 238 is, though for the meaning we can say {be fi'o teryratni li}.
phma -- li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > These presumably need a {ma'o}. > > > lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei cinmo cu nandu > > Explaning the emphasis-emotion is difficult. > > Wouldn't that be the emphasis-emoter?
Oh, so it would. Fixed by increasing pathalogicality.
> > mi cusku .ui zei nai bu > > I wrote a frowny face. > > Literally "happy type-of not letter". > > cusku -> ciska
Well, cusku can go either way, but OK.
> > ;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the > > following number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used > > almost anywhere, but is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical > > expressions. > > I think we should specify "almost anywhere".
I hate you.
This part responded to seperately.
-Robin
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:00:53PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > >lu da zei fa'o li'u > > > > > In which case we're inside a lu/li'u and the question of whether zei > quotes fa'o is a moot point, since we have fa'o quoted by lu/li'u.
- NO*. lu...li'u does *not* remove the grammatical effects of what's
inside it; the fa'o functions normally.
> I note that allowing {zei} to skip over preceding {ba'e}s (i.e. > {da ba'e zei de} means the same thing as {da zei de} except that > the joining and new part-of-speech is emphasized) doesn't really > lose us anything, since anything that {zei} could make with {ba'e} > could almost certainly be made with {basna}.
Even if we couldn't, we can use "zo" on the left to fix this.
> Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu? For that matter, is {.ui bu} > different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?
Well, grammatically it is different, obviously. Semantically, I think not.
> >>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no > >>ideas are coming to mind. > > > >XI NAI was proposed for this. > > Isn't this kind of literal?
I think so, yes. XI NAI, I mean.
> "Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low; it just means this > number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this particular > instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not > typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts > typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI > boys, etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways > of attaching numbers to things.
I think I disagree with that, but not seriously. If we're to go with your interpretation, XI needs to be largely re-written.
-Robin
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:59:52PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > (Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI > > > clauses embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.) > > > > In fact, that one would seem to be the only limitation required. > > All other free modifiers are bounded on both sides: > > > > SEI.../SEhU/ > > SOI.../SEhU/ > > COI/DOI.../DOhU/ > > TO.../TOI/ > > XI.../BOI/ > > XI VEI.../VEhO/ > > Vocatives won't be embeddable inside another vocative > before the DOI either, so that's two limitations.
For those of you who would like to play along at home:
free <- SEI-clause free* (terms CU-clause? free*)? selbri SEhU-clause? /
SOI-clause free* sumti sumti? SEhU-clause? /
vocative relative-clauses? selbri relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? /
vocative relative-clauses? (CMENE !BU-clause !ZEI-clause)+ free* relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? /
vocative sumti? DOhU-clause? /
(number / lerfu-string) MAI-clause /
TO-clause text TOI-clause? /
xi-clause
xi-clause <- XI-clause free* (number / lerfu-string) BOI-clause? /
XI-clause free* VEI-clause free* mex VEhO-clause?
vocative <- (COI-clause NAI-clause?)+ DOI-clause / (COI-clause NAI-clause?) (COI-clause NAI-clause?)* /
DOI-clause
SELMAhO-clause == SELMAhO, in general. Yay SA handling.
-Robin
On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > But free modifiers have additional restrictions, which are harder > to remember. > > I don't know if this list is complete: > > 1- They can't come between two CMENE > 2- They can't come between two NIhO's > 3- They can't come between I and BO in {I joikstag BO} > 4- They can't come between I and joik-jek in {I joik-jek} > 5- They can't come between NAhE and BO in {NAhE BO} > 6- They can't come between GOhA and RAhO in {GOhA RAhO} > 7- They can't come between NU and NAI in {NU NAI}
WTF does NU+NAI *mean*, by the way?
> 8- They can't come between digits/lerfu in a number or lerfu-string > 9- They can't come between components of a connective e.g. {NA SE A NAI} > 10- They can't come after a full connective in some contexts > 11- They can't come between components of a compound tag > 12- They can't come after a full tag in some contexts > 13- They can't come after COI or DOI > > Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even > though we probably won't want to use them in any of these places > very often, it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers > behaved just like indicators as much as possible.
I'm not reading your list carefully; here's what I can see:
In fact, as far as I can tell, free can *never* come after NAI. I don't know why this is.
Oh, wait, that's not quite true; there are a few cases. But only a few.
In particular, it can't come after the NAI that's allowed at the beginning of text.
It can't come after SI or SA. 
14 - Between tag? and TUhE.
15 - Anywhere at all in stag, tag, and their descendants (ignoring the fact that I've added "/ tense-modal (joik-jek tense-modal)*" to stag in my version). To wit, the following contain no instances of "free": tag, stag, simple-tense-modal, time, time-offset, space, space-offset, space-interval, space-int-props, interval-property
16 - After or within an ek, gihek, jek, joik, or interval. IOW, A, GIhA, JA, JOI, GAhO, BIhI, and all SE, NA and NAI combianations thereof.
Exceptions: Fragmentary ek and gihek can be followed by free. joik-ek and joik-jek both allow free at the end. That appears to be it.
17 - Betweeen NA and KU in NA+KU
18 - Anywhere in a ZOI. Other magic words cases.
18 - After or withion vocative, indicators, and indicator. This is probably a good thing.
19 - After LU.
20 - After LEhU.
21 - Between SE and GA or GUhA.
22 - Between joik and GI.
23 - Between stag and gik.
24 - Between GUhA and NAI.
25 - Between GI and NAI.
26 - Between a vocative and, well, anything AFAICT.
27 - Between a number and MAI.
28 - Between mex and VEhO.
Bear in mind that free is always allowed after free, because it's always in the grammar as free* or free+.
I must say, xorxes, you caught almost everything. Truly your PEG reading skills have increased rapidly.
If someone wants to tell me exactly which cases should now be allowed, or the inverse, speak up. We should probably vote on this, but that can be part of the general PEG vote.
-Robin
On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 05:17:39AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote: > On Wednesday 17 November 2004 23:00, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > >>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no > > >>ideas are coming to mind. > > > > > >XI NAI was proposed for this. > > > > Isn't this kind of literal? "Subscript" doesn't mean it's > > written low; it just means this number/letteral/math-expression > > somehow labels this particular instance or construct. These are > > notional subscripts, not typography. If you want to talk about > > super- and sub-scripts typographically, you should be using BY > > and LAU and the TEI/FOI boys, etc. I don't see that we need to > > distinguish different ways of attaching numbers to things. > > We should distinguish between the way 92 is attached to 'U' and > the way 238 is,
That's either a semantic distinction or a typesetting distinction, it need not be a grammatical one.
> though for the meaning we can say {be fi'o teryratni li}.
Exactly.
-Robin, still not sure how he feels about this.
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > But free modifiers have additional restrictions, which are harder > > to remember. > > > > I don't know if this list is complete: > > > > 1- They can't come between two CMENE > > 2- They can't come between two NIhO's > > 3- They can't come between I and BO in {I joikstag BO} > > 4- They can't come between I and joik-jek in {I joik-jek} > > 5- They can't come between NAhE and BO in {NAhE BO} > > 6- They can't come between GOhA and RAhO in {GOhA RAhO} > > 7- They can't come between NU and NAI in {NU NAI} > > WTF does NU+NAI *mean*, by the way?
WTF do connected NU's mean, for that matter. {nu je ka}, {du'u seju ni}, {pu'u najanai za'i}...
> > 8- They can't come between digits/lerfu in a number or lerfu-string
> > 9- They can't come between components of a connective e.g. {NA SE A NAI}
> > 10- They can't come after a full connective in some contexts
> > 11- They can't come between components of a compound tag
> > 12- They can't come after a full tag in some contexts
> > 13- They can't come after COI or DOI
> >
> > Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even
> > though we probably won't want to use them in any of these places
> > very often, it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers
> > behaved just like indicators as much as possible.
....
> It can't come after SI or SA.
Aren't {coi si co'o}, {coi sa co'o} grammatical?
> 14 - Between tag? and TUhE.
The EBNF seems ok with allowing free there.
> 15 - Anywhere at all in stag, tag, and their descendants (ignoring > the fact that I've added "/ tense-modal (joik-jek tense-modal)*" to > stag in my version). To wit, the following contain no instances of "free": > tag, stag, simple-tense-modal, time, time-offset, space, space-offset, > space-interval, space-int-props, interval-property
That's what I meant in point 11.
> 16 - After or within an ek, gihek, jek, joik, or interval. IOW, A, > GIhA, JA, JOI, GAhO, BIhI, and all SE, NA and NAI combianations > thereof.
Those are my points 9 and 10.
> Exceptions: Fragmentary ek and gihek can be followed by free. > joik-ek and joik-jek both allow free at the end. That appears to be > it.
That's why I wrote "in some contexts" in 10.
> 17 - Betweeen NA and KU in NA+KU
Right, I missed that one.
> 18 - Anywhere in a ZOI. Other magic words cases.
That's true of indicators too. Free has all the restrictions of indicators, plus the ones listed.
> 18 - After or withion vocative, indicators, and indicator. This is probably > a > good thing.
Vocatives are covered in point 13. Free _can_ follow and be followed by an indicator or indicators as far as I understand.
> 19 - After LU.
That's not really true. They can be at the begging of text, and LU can quote a text. It's just that they don't attach to LU the way free usually attaches to the preceding word.
> 20 - After LEhU.
They can't?
> 21 - Between SE and GA or GUhA. > > 22 - Between joik and GI. > > 23 - Between stag and gik. > > 24 - Between GUhA and NAI. > > 25 - Between GI and NAI.
Those are all covered in point 9.
> 26 - Between a vocative and, well, anything AFAICT.
You mean a vocative word? > > 27 - Between a number and MAI.
Point 13.
> 28 - Between mex and VEhO.
It can't?
> Bear in mind that free is always allowed after free, because it's > always in the grammar as free* or free+.
Yes.
> I must say, xorxes, you caught almost everything. Truly your > PEG reading skills have increased rapidly.
Actually, I read it off of the EBNF, not the PEG, but they are very similar for this. The parts of the PEG I have more trouble with are those not handled by the EBNF.
> If someone wants to tell me exactly which cases should now be > allowed, or the inverse, speak up. We should probably vote on this, > but that can be part of the general PEG vote.
I think you should move free with indicators, except for the two cases where it can't be, namely:
{(number | lerfu-string) MAI} cannot come within number or lerfu-string, and
{vocative relative-clauses selbri relative-clauses /DOhU/ | vocative relative-clauses CMENE ... # relative-clauses /DOhU/ | vocative sumti /DOhU/} cannot come within "vocative".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
> Jorge "Llambías" wrote: > >Prsumably {ma'o ui zei nai bu}. > > > me'o again.
Right.
> Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu?
No, lu/li'u are not magic words, as they don't cancel the usual grammatical behaviour of any other word. So that's an unclosed lu-quotation: {lu uinai li'ubu ...}
> For that matter, is {.ui bu} > different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?
One is the lerfu based on the word {ui} and the other is the lerfu based on the quoted word {zo ui}, so in principle they are two different lerfu. There is no rule saying how the source word relates to the lerfu obtained from it, so it is not possible to say much on how they differ.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Jorge "Llambías" wrote:
> <>--- "Mark E. Shoulson" wrote: > >>Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu? >> >> > >No, lu/li'u are not magic words, as they don't cancel >the usual grammatical behaviour of any other word. >So that's an unclosed lu-quotation: {lu uinai li'ubu ...} > OK, that makes sense... But now I want to find a way to make multi-word phrases (especially compound cmavo) into letterals. After all, *uinaibu is probably as useful as uibu. Is ZOI the only way to go here? Or something weird like {tei uibu naibu foi}
>>For that matter, is {.ui bu} >>different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)? >> >> > >One is the lerfu based on the word {ui} and the other is >the lerfu based on the quoted word {zo ui}, so in >principle they are two different lerfu. There is no >rule saying how the source word relates to the lerfu >obtained from it, so it is not possible to say much >on how they differ. > > OK, that was my question, actually: whether {zo ui bu}, as a letteral based on the quoted word, should be considered different from one based on the non-quoted one. I could see it either way. (In which case, of course, ZOI won't solve the {*uinaibu} problem, since I'd just get a letteral based on a (non-Lojban, even!) quotation, not the cmavo .uinai)
~mark
> OK, that makes sense... But now I want to find a way to make multi-word > phrases (especially compound cmavo) into letterals. After all, *uinaibu > is probably as useful as uibu. Is ZOI the only way to go here? Or > something weird like {tei uibu naibu foi}
{lo'u uinai le'u bu} will work for that.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:00:53PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > >>>lu da zei fa'o li'u >>> >>> >>> >>> >>In which case we're inside a lu/li'u and the question of whether zei >>quotes fa'o is a moot point, since we have fa'o quoted by lu/li'u. >> >> > >*NO*. lu...li'u does *not* remove the grammatical effects of what's >inside it; the fa'o functions normally. > > But I would think that that would mean, in this case, that fa'o signals the end of the current input stream, namely the *quoted* input stream, not the surrounding one. lu/li'u *do* prevent the normal grammatical functions of quoted text from affecting the surrounding text (e.g. pro-sumti assignments, etc).
>>I note that allowing {zei} to skip over preceding {ba'e}s (i.e. >>{da ba'e zei de} means the same thing as {da zei de} except that >>the joining and new part-of-speech is emphasized) doesn't really >>lose us anything, since anything that {zei} could make with {ba'e} >>could almost certainly be made with {basna}. >> >> > >Even if we couldn't, we can use "zo" on the left to fix this. > > Sorry, I'm not following this. We may not be talking about the same thing.
>>Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu? For that matter, is {.ui bu} >>different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)? >> >> > >Well, grammatically it is different, obviously. Semantically, I >think not. > > Semantically it *might* be, and there's probably a case somewhere where we'd intuitively say that semantically it is. Well, maybe, anyway.
>>>>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no >>>>ideas are coming to mind. >>>> >>>> >>>XI NAI was proposed for this. >>> >>> >>Isn't this kind of literal? >> >> > >I think so, yes. XI NAI, I mean. > > Yes, and subscripting vs superscripting in general.
>>"Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low; it just means this >>number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this particular >>instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not >>typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts >>typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI >>boys, etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways >>of attaching numbers to things. >> >> > >I think I disagree with that, but not seriously. If we're to go >with your interpretation, XI needs to be largely re-written. > > > I can try to spell it out in more detail, but I doubt I need to; it's pretty clear, and I think it does match up with most (not all!) of the examples given for XI (I fear there are probably some chemical formulae given, etc.)
~mark
> !! Examples of ba'e Usage > > lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei se zei cinmo cu nandu > Explaning the emphasis-emotion is difficult.
That should be {lo zo ba'e zei se zei cinmo}. Otherwise, ba'e emphasizes {zei}, which then joins {lo} and {se} into a lujvo. You could also just say {lo se zo ba'e zei cinmo}, I suppose.
> !! Examples of zei Usage > > pe'u roko friti le se .uu zei cinmo > Please, all of you offer your sympathies. > Literally, "pity type of feeling".
Is that really meant as {pe'u ro ko do'u}? Probably {pe'u ro do ko friti} makes more sense.
> !! Examples of xi Usage > > li xy. boi xi ci du li xy. boi xi pa su'i xy. boi xi re > x sub three = x sub one plus x sub two
The {boi}s are elidable here, aren't they?
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free! http://my.yahoo.com
On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:29:27PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > !! Examples of ba'e Usage > > > > lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei se zei cinmo cu nandu Explaning the > > emphasis-emotion is difficult. > > That should be {lo zo ba'e zei se zei cinmo}. Otherwise, ba'e > emphasizes {zei}, which then joins {lo} and {se} into a lujvo. You > could also just say {lo se zo ba'e zei cinmo}, I suppose.
I believe this is no longer true. Agreed?
> > !! Examples of zei Usage > > > > pe'u roko friti le se .uu zei cinmo > > Please, all of you offer your sympathies. > > Literally, "pity type of feeling". > > Is that really meant as {pe'u ro ko do'u}? > Probably {pe'u ro do ko friti} makes more sense.
Done.
> > !! Examples of xi Usage > > > > li xy. boi xi ci du li xy. boi xi pa su'i xy. boi xi re > > x sub three = x sub one plus x sub two > > The {boi}s are elidable here, aren't they?
Yup.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
The Red Book, C16 S19 says:
Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in succession.
Umm, *OK*. What does it *mean*, though?
Does {mi ba'e za'e ba'e ba'e broda} imply that the second ba'e is a nonce word, or does the whole thing imply that broda is nonce, for example?
I suppose it doesn't matter much; we don't need a hard and fast rule, but some indication ("in which case they all affect the next non-BAhE word", for example) would be nice.
-Robin
[email protected] scripsit: > BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives > Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives page.
Umm, what does this batch have in common? "Nonce Connectives" doesn't really explain it to me.
-- "They tried to pierce your heart John Cowan with a Morgul-knife that remains in the http://www.ccil.org/~cowan wound. If they had succeeded, you would http://www.reutershealth.com become a wraith under the domination of the Dark Lord." --Gandalf
[email protected] scripsit: > Re: BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives > The Red Book, C16 S19 says: > > Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in succession. > > Umm, *OK*. What does it *mean*, though?
Iterated ba'e is for LOTS OF EMPHASIS. Iterated za'e probably doesn't mean anything.
> Does {mi ba'e za'e ba'e ba'e broda} imply that the second ba'e is > a nonce word, or does the whole thing imply that broda is nonce, > for example?
I think the latter.
-- XQuery Blueberry DOM John Cowan Entity parser dot-com [email protected] Abstract schemata http://www.reutershealth.com XPointer errata http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:55:35PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > [email protected] scripsit: > > BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives > > Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives > > page. > > Umm, what does this batch have in common? "Nonce Connectives" > doesn't really explain it to me.
I have no idea; Nick made most of these divisions up.
Connectives
- Logical Connectives A GA GIhA GUhA GI JA
- Nonce Connectives BAhE ZEI XI
- Non-logical Connectives JOI (Shepherd: Jorge Llambias)
The above tells you what they are, but not why; you'd have to ask Nick for that part.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:58:42PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > [email protected] scripsit: > > Re: BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives The Red Book, C16 S19 says: > > > > Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in succession. > > > > Umm, *OK*. What does it *mean*, though? > > Iterated ba'e is for LOTS OF EMPHASIS. Iterated za'e probably > doesn't mean anything.
OK, cool. I'm going with "Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in succession, in which case they all affect the next non-BAhE word.", then.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
> OK, cool. I'm going with "Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in > succession, in which case they all affect the next non-BAhE word.", > then.
What if you want to mark a new BAhE as nonce?
(Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental BAhE that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the previous speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".)
I'm not objecting though.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:19:50PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > (Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental BAhE > that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the previous > speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".)
We can already doing that by not using ".i", can we not?
-Robin
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:19:50PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > (Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental BAhE > > that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the previous > > speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".) > > We can already doing that by not using ".i", can we not?
Not really.
A - xu do klama le zarci B - go'i
B does not mean the go'i to form a tanru with zarci. The parser has to recognize the change of voice and start a new utterance. But sometimes we do want to continue someone else'e utterance, so it would be useful to be able to override the change-of-voice = new-utterance default.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:31:02PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:19:50PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > (Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental > > > BAhE that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the > > > previous speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".) > > > > We can already doing that by not using ".i", can we not? > > Not really. > > A - xu do klama le zarci > > B - go'i
My understanding is that that is incorrect Lojban, and that B should have said ".i go'i". If you have evidence to the contrary (besides the fact that we all ignore it) please show me.
-Robin
On Fri, 5 Nov 2004, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:31:02PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >> >> --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 02:19:50PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: >>>> (Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental >>>> BAhE that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the >>>> previous speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".) >>> >>> We can already doing that by not using ".i", can we not? >> >> Not really. >> >> A - xu do klama le zarci >> >> B - go'i > > My understanding is that that is incorrect Lojban, and that B should > have said ".i go'i". If you have evidence to the contrary (besides > the fact that we all ignore it) please show me.
..i I sentence link sentence link/continuation; continuing sentences on same topic; normally elided for new speakers
Seems to say that a new speaker starts a new bridi.
Personally, I think the most logical construct would be .inai (or .i nai) to override the implicit .i, but I'm guessing the grammar for allowing that would require hand another hand sign for asteroid-strike. -- Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/
I want to die peacefully, in my sleep, like my grandfather, not screaming, terrified, like his passengers.
> > A - xu do klama le zarci > > > > B - go'i > > My understanding is that that is incorrect Lojban, and that B should > have said ".i go'i". If you have evidence to the contrary (besides > the fact that we all ignore it) please show me.
I'll check to see if I can find something official, but surely it's common sense that under normal circumstances a new speaker entails a new utterance. The usage is of course overwhelmingly in favor of this, too.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:39:45PM -0600, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > Personally, I think the most logical construct would be .inai (or > .i nai) to override the implicit .i, but I'm guessing the grammar > for allowing that would require hand another hand sign for > asteroid-strike.
Actually, it's trivial, at least in my grammar.
-Robin
-- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/
Jorge "Llambías" wrote:
>--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
>
>
>
>>OK, cool. I'm going with "Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in
>>succession, in which case they all affect the next non-BAhE word.",
>>then.
>>
>>
>
>What if you want to mark a new BAhE as nonce?
>
>(Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental BAhE
>that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the previous
>speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".)
>
>
Why should that be a BAhE and not a UI?
~mark
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:47:31PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> Jorge "Llamb??as" wrote:
>
> >--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>OK, cool. I'm going with "Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in
> >>succession, in which case they all affect the next non-BAhE
> >>word.", then.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >What if you want to mark a new BAhE as nonce?
> >
> >(Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental
> >BAhE that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the
> >previous speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".)
>
> Why should that be a BAhE and not a UI?
Because UI binds to the left, and one would want to use this word to start a new sentence.
-Robin
On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 05:48:48PM -0800, Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 14, 2004 at 08:47:31PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> > Jorge "Llamb??as" wrote:
> >
> > >--- Robin Lee Powell wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>OK, cool. I'm going with "Multiple BAhE cmavo may be used in
> > >>succession, in which case they all affect the next non-BAhE
> > >>word.", then.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >What if you want to mark a new BAhE as nonce?
> > >
> > >(Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental
> > >BAhE that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the
> > >previous speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".)
> >
> > Why should that be a BAhE and not a UI?
>
> Because UI binds to the left, and one would want to use this word
> to start a new sentence.
If we needed such a thing (and IMO we don't; that's what leaving off ".i" is for) it should either be a member of I or just ".i se'i nai".
-Robin
> Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > Mark E. Shoulson wrote: > > > Jorge "Llamb??as" wrote: > > > >(Actually, there was at some point talk about an experimental > > > >BAhE that meant "what follows continues the utterance of the > > > >previous speaker, even though I'm a new speaker".) > > > > > > Why should that be a BAhE and not a UI? > > > > Because UI binds to the left, and one would want to use this word > > to start a new sentence.
Mostly it would be used to *not* start a new sentence. I think the logic of the situation requires this marker to attach to the word that follows. It says "what comes next, starting from this word I'm marking, should not be considered a new utterance". It doesn't really say anything about the last word spoken by the previous speaker.
> If we needed such a thing (and IMO we don't; that's what leaving off > ".i" is for) it should either be a member of I or just ".i se'i > nai".
It can't be in "I"! The parse tree would come out all wrong. I suppose {i si} could be used as a signal for the parser with that meaning. As I said on irc, I think it makes more sense for si-clauses to (invisibly, but still) attach to the following word rather than the preceding one, so in that case an {i si} would behave very much like BAhE.
Leaving off {i} is not enough because the default assumption should be that a new speaker starts a new utterance. Assuming that a new speaker always continues the other speaker's utterance does not make much sense.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:
> Leaving off {i} is not enough because the default assumption should > be that a new speaker starts a new utterance. Assuming that a new > speaker always continues the other speaker's utterance does not > make much sense.
+1 on all points. Frankly, I don't think we need a formal way to say
"This utterance continues the last person's utterance".
-- "How they ever reached any conclusion at all [email protected]> is starkly unknowable to the human mind." http://www.reutershealth.com --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
> +1 on all points. Frankly, I don't think we need a formal way to say > "This utterance continues the last person's utterance".
I am not advocating for such a cmavo either. I think {i si} or something like it can serve as an informal way.
The point that started this was that it is possible to have an experimental member of BAhE marked as nonce, so the parse BAhE (BAhE? (whatever)) (which is what Robin has now, I think) does make sense.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com
Robin,
What is the idea of having "broda zei fa'o" not end the parser input?
I see no justification of this in your section, and this directly contradicts my description of fa'o in BPFK Section: Text structure cmavo.
--arj
> What is the idea of having "broda zei fa'o" not end the parser input?
The idea is that there be no exceptions to left to right processing of magic words. In all these cases fa'o is disabled:
zo fa'o zoi fa'o ... fa'o broda zei fa'o lo'u ... fa'o ... le'u
because {zo}, {zoi}, {zei} and {lo'u}, as long as they have not been themselves turned into "any-word" by a preceding magic word, will always turn the following word (or words) into "any-word".
mu'o mi'e xorxes
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''__ Do you Yahoo!? Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! http://my.yahoo.com
On Sun, Nov 21, 2004 at 06:35:28AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > > What is the idea of having "broda zei fa'o" not end the parser > > input? > > The idea is that there be no exceptions to left to right > processing of magic words. In all these cases fa'o is disabled: > > zo fa'o > zoi fa'o ... fa'o > broda zei fa'o > lo'u ... fa'o ... le'u > > because {zo}, {zoi}, {zei} and {lo'u}, as long as they have not > been themselves turned into "any-word" by a preceding magic word, > will always turn the following word (or words) into "any-word".
What he said.
-Robin
I think that pertained to a previous version of ba'e, when it was considered a magic word.
mi'e xorxes
On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:14:18AM -0800, [email protected] wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives >
>> > ba'e can no longer be used by zei or bu on the left (or anything > else on the left, for that matter) without using zo. It affects
> these words as normal, however.> > I think that pertained to a previous version of ba'e, when it was > considered a magic word. >
Indeed.
-Robin
Re: BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives Robin,
What is the idea of having "broda zei fa'o" not end the parser input?
I see no justification of this in your section, and this directly contradicts my description of fa'o in BPFK Section: Text structure cmavo.
--arj
Re: BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives
I think that pertained to a previous version of ba'e, when it was considered a magic word.
mi'e xorxes