BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives Posted by rlpowell on Fri 05 of Nov, 2004 21:51 GMT posts: 14214 Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives page.
Posted by rlpowell on Fri 05 of Nov, 2004 21:53 GMT posts: 14214 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
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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 jcowan@reutershealth.com Abstract schemata http://www.reutershealth.com XPointer errata http://www.ccil.org/~cowan Infoset Unicode BOM --Richard Tobin
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:55:35PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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/
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 14214 On Fri, Nov 05, 2004 at 04:58:42PM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > wikidiscuss@lojban.org 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/
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 1912 > 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
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 14214 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
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:53 GMT posts: 1912 > 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
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:53 GMT posts: 14214 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
Posted by Anonymous on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:53 GMT 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.
Posted by xorxes on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:53 GMT posts: 1912 > > 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
Posted by rlpowell on Tue 09 of Nov, 2004 01:53 GMT posts: 14214 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. <chortle> 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/
Posted by clsn on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 84 Jorge "LlambÃas" 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
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 14214 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
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 14214 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
Posted by xorxes on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 20:29 GMT posts: 1912 > 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
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 20:29 GMT 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 jcowan@reutershealth.com> is starkly unknowable to the human mind." http://www.reutershealth.com --"Backstage Lensman", Randall Garrett http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Posted by xorxes on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 20:30 GMT posts: 1912 > +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
Posted by rlpowell on Wed 17 of Nov, 2004 08:33 GMT posts: 14214 I have this annoying feeling that I'm forgetting important things about xi. Help? -Robin
Posted by arj on Sun 21 of Nov, 2004 13:29 GMT posts: 953 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
Posted by xorxes on Sun 21 of Nov, 2004 23:35 GMT posts: 1912 > 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
Posted by rlpowell on Sun 21 of Nov, 2004 23:35 GMT posts: 14214 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
Posted by xorxes on Sun 02 of Jan, 2005 19:14 GMT posts: 1912 Impact 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. mi'e xorxes
Posted by rlpowell on Wed 05 of Jan, 2005 02:17 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Jan 02, 2005 at 11:14:18AM -0800, wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives > > Impact > > 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
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan, 2005 01:09 GMT 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
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 12 of Jan, 2005 01:10 GMT Re: BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives Impact 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. mi'e xorxes
