Talk:Tiki forum archive/Forum 1/Orphan posts
Source: 2013 Tiki forum 1. These posts' parent records are absent from the source dump. Original parent IDs are retained below.
Posts with missing parent records
partial shift cancellation
stevo · 2004-01-04 03:57 UTC · Tiki post #250 · reply to Tiki post #249
[email protected] writes: > ;na'a: Cancels all shifts (font, case, etc.) currently applied to > letterals. Any shifts that occur earlier in the text do not affect letterals from this > .
how is only one shift to be cancelled when several are effective? e.g., if i'm using russian and italics and capitalization, how do i cancel just the italics and capitalization without cancelling the russian? or do i have to reactivate all the shifts i still want after each time i cancel?
stevoMorphology: consonants
Anonymous · 2005-02-20 11:37 UTC · Tiki post #4034 · reply to Tiki post #4031
beginning with them? Here are a couple to start you off: jglandi: walnut splaknuke: a Brobdingnagian animal
phma
-- ..i le babzba ba zbasu
lo jbazbabu lo babjbaBPFK Section: Quantity sumtcita
Anonymous · 2005-03-29 21:13 UTC · Tiki post #4476 · reply to Tiki post #4475
> mi'a ca nelci le cmalu trene semau le sorprekarce > We like the small train, more so than the bus.
This (very frequent) type of usage has been traditionally objected. (Do we like the small train more than we like the bus, or more than the bus likes the small train? Context clearly disambiguates in this case, but not in other similar cases.) The usual correction was to say {semau tu'a le sorprekarce} or {le cmalu trene ne semau le sorprekarce}, but if we don't want any rules for BAIs I suppose this one will now become acceptable too.
mu'o mi'e xorxesBPFK Section: Quantity sumtcita
arj · 2005-03-29 21:37 UTC · Tiki post #4477 · reply to Tiki post #4475
>> Examples of se mau Usage >> mi'a ca nelci le cmalu trene semau le sorprekarce >> We like the small train, more so than the bus. > > This (very frequent) type of usage has been traditionally > objected. (Do we like the small train more than we like > the bus, or more than the bus likes the small train?
Gee, I see the problem. IIRC that was from actual usage. I'll try to think up an example that uses it the right way. (If *you* could give a good example, that would be swell.)
> Context clearly disambiguates in this case, but not in > other similar cases.)
Is it possible/likely that this vagueness could be intentional on the part of those who added {mau}? (I am especially asking for oldbie input on this one.)
Do you people think it is *desirable* to have this vagueness available?
-- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/
7% unemployment is no problem, according to 93% of the population.BPFK Section: Quantity sumtcita
pycyn · 2005-03-29 22:31 UTC · Tiki post #4478 · reply to Tiki post #4475
> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > >> Examples of se mau Usage > >> mi'a ca nelci le cmalu trene semau le > sorprekarce > >> We like the small train, more so than the > bus. > > > > This (very frequent) type of usage has been > traditionally > > objected. (Do we like the small train more > than we like > > the bus, or more than the bus likes the small > train? > > Gee, I see the problem. IIRC that was from > actual usage. I'll try to think > up an example that uses it the right way. (If > *you* could give a good > example, that would be swell.) > > > Context clearly disambiguates in this case, > but not in > > other similar cases.) > > Is it possible/likely that this vagueness could > be intentional on the part > of those who added {mau}? (I am especially > asking for oldbie input on this > one.) > > Do you people think it is *desirable* to have > this vagueness available? > Gee, I hate to go all ruley, but this case seems different from the cases over in Epistmology. This is not about a transformation but about what a BAI phrase modifies (which I suppose does come out to be acertain kind of transformation): "We more than the bus like the small train (trolley?) vs. we like more that the bus the small train (damn, this needs diagrams but you get the idea).
Since these are sumtcita of quantity, this must
add a quantity place to the predication. But that doesn't help, since "How much?" can be answered by either "More than the bus does" or "More than we like the bus." {le ni mi'o nelci le cmalu trene cu zmadu le ni mi'o nelci le sorprekarce} v {le ni mi'o nelci le cmalu trene cu zmadu le ni le sorprekarce cu nelci le cmaulu trene}. One way to deal with it I suppose is to put the added place next to what it revolves on {mio se mau le sorprekarce cu ...} v what is given here.
With a fronted or reared version that is
ambiguous in the way this seems to be (and is in English). The stock response, that the subject-bus case is has an abstraction at its base while the object-bus case does not doesn't really seem to have a lot of basis in underlying structures. But then we just got rid of underlying structures as significant here. Which brings me back to thinking this is in principle a different kind of case, but leaves me no clearer on what the difference is or why it is
significant.BPFK Section: Quantity sumtcita
pycyn · 2005-03-29 23:15 UTC · Tiki post #4479 · reply to Tiki post #4475
wrote: > > --- Arnt Richard Johansen <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jorge Llambías wrote: > > > > >> Examples of se mau Usage > > >> mi'a ca nelci le cmalu trene semau le > > sorprekarce > > >> We like the small train, more so than the > > bus. > > > > > > This (very frequent) type of usage has been > > traditionally > > > objected. (Do we like the small train more > > than we like > > > the bus, or more than the bus likes the > small > > train? > > > > Gee, I see the problem. IIRC that was from > > actual usage. I'll try to think > > up an example that uses it the right way. (If > > *you* could give a good > > example, that would be swell.) > > > > > Context clearly disambiguates in this case, > > but not in > > > other similar cases.) > > > > Is it possible/likely that this vagueness > could > > be intentional on the part > > of those who added {mau}? (I am especially > > asking for oldbie input on this > > one.) > > > > Do you people think it is *desirable* to have > > this vagueness available? > > > Gee, I hate to go all ruley, but this case > seems > different from the cases over in Epistmology. > This is not about a transformation but about > what > a BAI phrase modifies (which I suppose does > come > out to be acertain kind of transformation): "We > more than the bus like the small train > (trolley?) > vs. we like more that the bus the small train > (damn, this needs diagrams but you get the > idea). > Since these are sumtcita of quantity, this > must > add a quantity place to the predication. But > that doesn't help, since "How much?" can be > answered by either "More than the bus does" or > "More than we like the bus." {le ni mi'o nelci > le cmalu trene cu zmadu le ni mi'o nelci le > sorprekarce} v > {le ni mi'o nelci le cmalu trene cu zmadu le ni > le sorprekarce cu nelci le cmaulu trene}. > One way to deal with it I suppose is to put the > added place next to what it revolves on {mio se > mau le sorprekarce cu ...} v what is given > here. > With a fronted or reared version that is > ambiguous in the way this seems to be (and is > in > English). The stock response, that the > subject-bus case is has an abstraction at its > base while the object-bus case does not doesn't > really seem to have a lot of basis in > underlying > structures. But then we just got rid of > underlying structures as significant here. > Which > brings me back to thinking this is in principle > a > different kind of case, but leaves me no > clearer > on what the difference is or why it is > significant.
Well, the difference seems to be that no matter how you make an explanation, you seem always to a pair of substitutions in a frame, so the crucial thing is to identify the frame(which is in the main bridi) since the substituends are given (once the frame is picked). I don't think this pattern works generally, but maybe it does for quantities, just as the insertion of events into the associated predicate does for causal BAI. The problem is, of course, that this does nothing to say what the frame is. Insisting on putting the two sustituends next to eachother leave no room for afterthought: we like the trolley -- more than the bus does. I don't think we really want to leave the simple form ambiguous and certainly not if we don't have somethings almost as simple that is clear. (I suppose the {tu'a le sorprekarce} version is a calque of "than the bus does." But of course the object-bus case is as much a buried abstraction as the subject-bus, once we introduce that notion into
considerations.) Which gets us nowhere either.Re: Tiki Feature Testing
rlpowell · 2007-10-30 05:31 UTC · Tiki post #6257 · reply to Tiki post #6256
