more grammar discussion Posted by pdf23ds on Mon 17 of Nov, 2008 06:21 GMT posts: 143 Use this thread to discuss the more grammar discussion page.
Posted by pdf23ds on Mon 17 of Nov, 2008 06:21 GMT posts: 143 > sumti-tail <- (sumti-6 relatives?)? sumti-tail-1 / relatives sumti-tail-1 It looks like this rule is a bit redundant. It could be simplified to sumti-tail <- sumti-6? relatives? sumti-tail-1 without changing the meaning. Chris Capel -- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet) To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Mon 17 of Nov, 2008 11:36 GMT On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote: >> sumti-tail <- (sumti-6 relatives?)? sumti-tail-1 / relatives sumti-tail-1 > > It looks like this rule is a bit redundant. It could be simplified to > > sumti-tail <- sumti-6? relatives? sumti-tail-1 > > without changing the meaning. I think the reason for having it separate is that in the presence of sumti-6, the relatives will apply to sumti-6, while in the absence of sumti-6, the relatives will apply to the sumti in sumti-tail-1. So really it should be something like: sumti-tail <- (modifier-sumti / relatives)? sumti-tail-1 modifier-sumti <- sumti-6 relatives? mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by pdf23ds on Wed 19 of Nov, 2008 01:10 GMT posts: 143 On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 05:34, Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 3:20 AM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote: >>> sumti-tail <- (sumti-6 relatives?)? sumti-tail-1 / relatives sumti-tail-1 >> >> It looks like this rule is a bit redundant. It could be simplified to >> >> sumti-tail <- sumti-6? relatives? sumti-tail-1 >> >> without changing the meaning. > > I think the reason for having it separate is that in the presence of > sumti-6, the relatives will apply to sumti-6, while in the absence of > sumti-6, the relatives will apply to the sumti in sumti-tail-1. So > really it should be something like: > > sumti-tail <- (modifier-sumti / relatives)? sumti-tail-1 > > modifier-sumti <- sumti-6 relatives? You make a good case, though I'm not sure I like the name "modifier-sumti". OK, what about this one: > sumti-tail-1 <- selbri relatives? / quantifier selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti becomes sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier? selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti Chris Capel -- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet) To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of Nov, 2008 01:29 GMT On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 05:34, Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: >>So >> really it should be something like: >> >> sumti-tail <- (modifier-sumti / relatives)? sumti-tail-1 >> >> modifier-sumti <- sumti-6 relatives? > > You make a good case, though I'm not sure I like the name "modifier-sumti". "genitive"? > OK, what about this one: > >> sumti-tail-1 <- selbri relatives? / quantifier selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti > > becomes > > sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier? selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti What happens with the sumti-tail "pa moi"? mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by pdf23ds on Wed 19 of Nov, 2008 02:37 GMT posts: 143 On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 19:28, Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote: >> OK, what about this one: >> >>> sumti-tail-1 <- selbri relatives? / quantifier selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti >> >> becomes >> >> sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier? selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti > > What happens with the sumti-tail "pa moi"? Hmm. I see your point. But check this out: > selbri-6 <- tanru-unit (BO free* selbri-6)? / NAhE? free* guhek selbri gik selbri-6 Another instance of gek (or guhek) not letting its second clause as flexible as its first. Chris Capel -- "What is it like to be a bat? What is it like to bat a bee? What is it like to be a bee being batted? What is it like to be a batted bee?" -- The Mind's I (Hofstadter, Dennet) To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of Nov, 2008 13:05 GMT On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 11:36 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 19:28, Jorge LlambÃas <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 10:07 PM, Chris Capel <pdf23ds@gmail.com> wrote: >>> OK, what about this one: >>> >>>> sumti-tail-1 <- selbri relatives? / quantifier selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti >>> >>> becomes >>> >>> sumti-tail-1 <- quantifier? selbri relatives? / quantifier sumti >> >> What happens with the sumti-tail "pa moi"? > > Hmm. I see your point. Actually, I don't really have a point. "quantifier" is: quantifier <- number !MOI BOI? free* / VEI free* mex VEhO? free* So "quantifier?" won't grab the "number" of "number MOI". Your simplification should work. >But check this out: > >> selbri-6 <- tanru-unit (BO free* selbri-6)? / NAhE? free* guhek selbri gik selbri-6 > > Another instance of gek (or guhek) not letting its second clause as > flexible as its first. Yes, another ugliness. mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
Posted by Anonymous on Wed 19 of Nov, 2008 14:50 GMT There's something odd about this rule: selbri-4 <- selbri-4 joik-jek selbri-5 / selbri-4 joik tag? KE free* selbri-3 KEhE? free* / selbri-5 It's the only rule (ok, together with the "operator" rule which presents the same oddness) where joik is not allowed to alternate with jek or with ek. Why is that? mu'o mi'e xorxes To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-list-request@lojban.org with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if you're really stuck, send mail to secretary@lojban.org for help.
