Wiki page Reduced logical form changed

posts: 1912

> > as
> > for example {ju'a do klama le zarci}, {xu do
> > klama le zarci}
> > and {e'u do klama le zarci} all have the same
> > reduced form
> > (i.e. propositional content) but obviously
> > different meaning
> > in a wider sense.
> >
> These last examples are just the modes that ought
> also be included in what gets carried over into
> the logical form.

That will have to wait for stage 2, then. For the
moment I'm concentrating on the basic stuff:
negation, quantifiers and connectives. Tenses
come almost for free since they behave more or less
like negation (in Lojban grammar).

> I meant that there is not agrammatical way to
> specify which things are modals, etc. They are
> spread over half a dozen form classes, each of
> which contains any number of things that are not
> modal. But we can list what ought to be included
> item by item (it would take a while and some
> thought but it is a finite task).

Ok, I'll play if you want to start it, but that's
not what I'm doing here as yet.

> The usual cases in natural languages are mixed
> prefixes: modal and quantifier, for example:
> "there is some that did" and "there was something
> that did" or tense and modal "it used to be
> possible that" v. "it is possible that it used to
> be."

Those are both doable in the proposed reduced form:

{su'o da zo'u pu ku zo'u ....} vs
{pu ku zo'u su'o da zo'u ...}

and {pu ku zo'u ka'e ku zo'u ...}
vs {ka'e ku zo'u pu ku zo'u ...}

> > {na.a} expands to {ganai ... gi ...}.
> A good rule for the purpose, but a hard one to
> teach for some reason.

Because it looks as if {na} was negating {a} rather
than the first connectand, I suppose.

> > {nagi} is not grammatical.
> That was a more dubious call, since even in
> Polish the distinction is often colloquially
> useful (but also often just confusing).

{ge ... naku gi ...} is quite acceptable though.

> > Yes. But seeing what the shift rules are in
> > full
> > (or as much in full as we can manage) will
> > hopefully
> > make it easier to decide which rule we should
> > to adopt.
> >
> I didn't know the rules were up for grabs. What
> — aside from people being too lazy or ignorant
> to use them — was the matter with the set we
> had?

Incompleteness, mainly.

We don't know for sure, for example, whether
{na broda gi'e brode} is {(na broda) gi'e (brode)},
as the parser says, or {na (broda gi'e brode)}.

> And the two obvious problems don't seem to
> be reasons to change the rules.

If there are no good reasons, and we can figure out
what the rules actually are, they probably won't be

mu'o mi'e xorxes

Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.