Wiki page BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives as of 11 Feb 2005 changed Posted by Anonymous on Sun 13 of Feb, 2005 18:41 GMT Use this thread to discuss the Wiki page BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives as of 11 Feb 2005 changed page.
Posted by rlpowell on Sun 13 of Feb, 2005 21:41 GMT posts: 14214 Again, why didn't you do this *before* the section was voted on and closed? The voting was open for *weeks*. On Sun, Feb 13, 2005 at 05:36:57PM +0100, Philip Newton wrote: > On Fri, 11 Feb 2005 11:46:59 -0800, webmaster@lojban.org > <webmaster@lojban.org> wrote: > > ;za'e (BAhE): Nonce word follows. Forethought nonce-word > > indicator. Indicates that the next word is a nonce creation or > > is nonstandard in some way. For grammatical purposes, "za'e" > > binds with and marks the following word but does not change its > > nature. > ... > > doi grizis mi tcidu za'e la ralcku > > Grizis, I read what I'll call "The Book". > > This looks to me as if {za'e} applies to {la ralcku}, while the > explanation with its use of "word" would lead me to apply {za'e} > only to {la}... which is correct? The latter. I'm not cure it matters. > If {za'e} applies only to {la}, then {ralcku} is not marked, so I > suppose the speaker is saying "I'm using {la}, which usually marks > names, but I'm using that gadri in a non-standard way. This > non-standard gadri will apply to the perfectly-normal brivla > {ralcku}." Seems like a perfectly acceptable interpretation in this case, yeah. Might have been a bit clearer with za'e one place over, though. -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 Anonymous on Mon 14 of Feb, 2005 07:05 GMT On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 13:11:08 -0800, Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org> wrote: > Again, Again? I hadn't seen an earlier question from you. (Though in the mean time I have; it was "later" since there were later messages in that conversation, so I came to it later.) > why didn't you do this *before* the section was voted on and > closed? Because I didn't feel responsible for it. And I didn't think I was proposing any changes when I asked those questions the other day. > The voting was open for *weeks*. I didn't think I had a vote. mu'o mi'e .filip. -- Philip Newton <philip.newton@gmail.com>