[16:34] <udjalus> coi ro do ro do ro do ro do
[16:34] <vensa> xalbo: the desk at the office is the place one is at
[16:35] == MayDaniel [~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel] has quit []
[16:36] == udjalus [8a64d0d8@gateway/web/freenode/ip.138.100.208.216] has quit [Client Quit]
[16:36] <vensa> short for {mi de'a zvati lo jibni be lo skami} :)
[16:37] <@xalbo> je'e
[16:37] <vensa> you think {mi de'a jibni} would also be understandable?
[16:38] == Imami [~Ali.Sajid@119.152.165.47] has quit []
[16:39] <vensa> coi udjalus
[16:39] <@xalbo> probably, yeah
[16:39] <vensa> lo do jufra pu nalgenra
[16:40] == Sxem [~sky@pool-71-178-129-174.washdc.east.verizon.net] has joined #lojban
[16:40] <vensa> si nalgendra
[16:41] <vensa> .y .u'u li'a ja'a gendra
[16:41] <vensa> gerna coi ro do ro do ro do ro do
[16:41] <gerna> (0[{coi <(1ro BOI)1 do> DO'U} {<(1[{ro BOI} do] [{ro BOI} do])1 (1[ro BOI] do)1> VAU}])0
[16:41] <vensa> cizra
[16:42] <soto> gerna lo cizra le cizra la cizra
[16:42] <gerna> (0[{<(1lo cizra KU)1 (1le cizra KU)1> <la cizra KU>} VAU])0
[16:42] <vensa> hmm, aparently a list of sumti with no selbri is also a gramatical utterance
[16:42] == kribacr [42c07e03@gateway/web/freenode/ip.66.192.126.3] has joined #lojban
[16:42] <kribacr> coi
[16:42] <vensa> probably in order to be able to answer questions like {ma zvati ma}
[16:42] <@xalbo> Exactly.
[16:42] <vensa> :)
[16:42] <Volatile> heh. nice.
[16:43] <kribacr> Sorry, my computer froze, so I missed anything you guys said.
[16:43] <kribacr> What about ma zvati ma?
[16:43] <vensa> we said: {coi ba'e la kribacr .i mi'a prami do}
[16:44] <vensa> nm ma zvati ma
[16:44] <Volatile> Hm, is no "omitted selbri" cmavu implictly involved somewhere?
[16:45] <Volatile> co'e
[16:45] <vensa> volatile:im not sure, but I can think of cases where it shouldnt be
[16:45] <vensa> e.g.: {ma djica lonu ma cliva}
[16:45] <vensa> the answer to that does not involve a single {co'e} relation between the two {ma}s
[16:46] <vensa> xalbo: am I right?
[16:46] == eternaleye [~alex@exherbo/developer/eternaleye] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[16:46] <Volatile> Hm. And the answer does not have to have the relationship pointed out?
[16:47] <@xalbo> I think there's some debate on whether one can omit {co'e} or not.
[16:47] <vensa> IMO: no. the order of the sumti defines which {ma} each one is answering...
[16:47] <Volatile> Is { zo'e zo'e } a legit answer, or do you have to do { zo'e co'e lonu zo'e co'e } ? :)
[16:47] <vensa> yay! I love debate :)
[16:47] <@xalbo> {zo'e zo'e} is absolutely a legit answer.
[16:48] <@xalbo> And there's also a {bu'a} such that {mi ti bu'a} is the same as {mi djica lo nu mi ti cliva}, it's just a complicated one :)
[16:48] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has joined #lojban
[16:48] <kucli> coi ke'u ro do
[16:48] <vensa> xalbo: how do you define that bu'a?
[16:48] <vensa> (using cei)
[16:49] <vensa> coi la kucli
[16:50] <@xalbo> I'm not sure, actually. With one place free, I can use ckaji, but there needs to be something for more variables.
[16:51] <Volatile> Is it always possible to interpret the answers as full structures omitting a lot of relation wordsL
[16:51] <Volatile> s/L/?/
[16:51] <@xalbo> That is, {ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva} is *almost* it, but not quite.
[16:51] <vensa> xalbo: I dont follow. but I gather that's the argument "for" including {co'e}. i.e. saying that there IS "some" selbri that relates the two sumti, so that selbri can be {co'e} even if its unclear what {co'e} actually is...?
[16:52] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[16:52] <vensa> wow! that was beautifuly complicated
[16:52] <vensa> I think I understood the "gist" of it
[16:52] <@xalbo> {djica co cliva} is pretty darn close, of course :)
[16:52] <vensa> yes
[16:53] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client Quit]
[16:53] <vensa> but an *exact* selbri is possible? because {ckaji} isnt *exactly* the same.... even if it were gramaticaly standardised to use all those {xi}s
[16:54] <@xalbo> So, absent a question we're answering, {mi lo mensi be do} is a grammatical utterance, and {mi co'e lo mensi be do} is a grammatical and sensible utterance. The question is whether the former has the same meaning/interpretation as the latter.
[16:54] <vensa> also: I misunderstand {ce'uxipa ce'uxire}. y not just {ce'uxire}
[16:54] <@xalbo> I wanted {mi ti cliva}, not {ti cliva}
[16:55] <vensa> oh "I leave here".. ok
[16:56] <@xalbo> And I'm not even sure what your question about an exact selbri means.
[16:56] <vensa> xalbo: but still: {mi ti ckaji lo ka ce'u xi pa djica lo nu ce'u xi pa ce'u xi re cliva} puts {ti} in the x2 of ckaji. not in the ce'uxire
[16:58] <vensa> I think that {mi co'e lo mensi be do} means that there is an expressable relationship between me and your sister. wether we want to allow using {co'e} even in cases where that relationship cannot be exactly expressed (in the same form as it were expressed in the question) is what the debate is about (I reckon )
[17:00] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has quit [Quit: Offline]
[17:01] <kribacr> .i li'a si'a ji'a mi co'e lo mamta be do
[17:01] <vensa> doi kribacr xa'a'a
[17:01] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi]
[17:02] <selpa`i> kribacr: Do you still teach like you did two years ago?
[17:02] <@xalbo> I assert that it means there is a relationship that is relevant to the conversation, not that it can necessarily be expressed *simply*.
[17:02] <kribacr> Wow... has it really been two years? O_O
[17:02] <selpa`i> Yes, almost exactly-
[17:02] <kribacr> Yes, I still teach. Well, in theory. I don't have as much t ime as I used to.
[17:02] <vensa> xalbo: can it be expressed AT ALL?
[17:02] <kribacr> But yes, I can still teach.
[17:02] <@xalbo> (and I knew the {ckaji} was wrong, I was complaining about it at the time)
[17:02] <selpa`i> Uh, sucks to hear that you are so busy.
[17:02] <kribacr> Today seems like a slow day, so I may have time for a lesson in a few hours.
[17:03] <kribacr> xalbo is a wonderful teacher as well.
[17:03] <@xalbo> If there is a relationship that cannot be expressed, then lojban is utterly broken. I do not believe that is the case, though.
[17:03] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has joined #lojban
[17:03] == mode/#lojban [+o kpreid] by ChanServ
[17:03] <selpa`i> Well, it was more of a general question, and I wouldnt be your pupil this time.
[17:03] == sanotehu_ [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[17:03] <kribacr> On the subject of implied co'e, if that's what you're talking about, I'm sort of a proponent for it.
[17:03] <selpa`i> I know, xalbo is a nice teacher as well
[17:03] <kribacr> Ah, gotcha.
[17:03] <kribacr> Who? And how new?
[17:03] <selpa`i> It was mostly a hypothetical question.
[17:04] <selpa`i> I know someone who I would like to learn lojban or atleast get into it.
[17:04] == sanotehu_ [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Client Quit]
[17:04] <kribacr> Ah, gotcha.
[17:04] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[17:04] <vensa> xalbo: expressed with a single selbri. how? you cant even express a simple {ma broda lonu brode ma} with a single selbri, so what will you do with a huge number of {ma}s?
[17:04] <@xalbo> Anyway, I'd love to have a word that means "x1 (relation with an arbitrary number of empty spots marked by ce'u) is true with x2 filling ce'u1, x3 filling ce'u2, etc"
[17:04] <selpa`i> But it's unclear whether that person will actually do it.
[17:05] <vensa> xalbo: that would probably solve it
[17:05] <vensa> but as of currently, it seems that lojban is broken
[17:05] <vensa> IF you add the implied co'e
[17:05] <selpa`i> Does anyone happen to have the old chatlogs
[17:05] <selpa`i> ?
[17:05] <selpa`i> From 2 years ago?
[17:06] <vensa> I think Hugglesworth has a bunch of logs on his machine. maybe they go back 2 yrs
[17:06] <vensa> He once looked for something for me
[17:06] <soto> http://www.lojban.org/resources/irclog/lojban/ ?
[17:06] <@xalbo> vensa: The point is that that's a content word (it's just a selbri), and that the class of selbri is wide open. I could coin a fu'ivla that means just that, and there you go.
[17:07] <vensa> hmmmmm
[17:07] <vensa> but the original question did not use the fu'ivla. so is it still the same thing?
[17:07] <@xalbo> There's nothing *fundamentally* unexpressible about that.
[17:08] <vensa> yeah. I suppose I could/should be accepted (an implied co'e)
[17:08] <vensa> so, whats the main argument AGAINST?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[17:08] <vensa> soto: that's stuff expressed IN LOJBAN only
[17:08] <vensa> it filters out the english
[17:09] <soto> oh right
[17:09] <@xalbo> I'm not sure. And I was previously somewhat against it. But I really don't have a good argument against it.
[17:09] <vensa> hehehe
[17:09] <vensa> this is exactly what my discussion topics log is for
[17:09] <@xalbo> I tend to include explicit {co'e}, but I'm not sure there's a reason to do so.
[17:09] * vensa is archiving
[17:09] <kribacr> I think the problem with implied {co'e} is when people just speak vocatives.
[17:10] <vensa> kribacr: what does that mean?
[17:10] <vensa> example?
[17:11] <kribacr> Well...
[17:11] <kribacr> coi la vensa
[17:11] <vensa> coi .u'i
[17:11] <kribacr> Is there an implied {co'e} there?
[17:11] <vensa> ahhhh
[17:11] <vensa> dunno. and if there is. what harm does it do?
[17:11] <kribacr> If there is, is it harmless?
[17:11] <kribacr> Right.
[17:11] <vensa> I think its harmless
[17:11] <kribacr> I'm just playing devil's advocate here.
[17:12] <vensa> obviously, if I am addressing you, I am telling you something
[17:12] <vensa> perhasp {coi la kribacr zo'e co'e zo'e} is {coi la kribacr mi rinsa do}
[17:13] <vensa> btw: you could say the same thing about bare UI
[17:13] <@xalbo> Answering questions is weird anyway. {.i ma fanta lo nu do mo}, for instance, naïvely produces an aswer that doesn't seem right at all.
[17:13] <vensa> but there too I believe there is an implied {co'e}
[17:14] == LogicalDash [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has quit [Quit: Leaving]
[17:14] <vensa> xalbo: I think it's like the difference between "a complete answer" and fragments
[17:14] <@xalbo> Yeah.
[17:14] <vensa> I would reply {do fanta lonu mi surla} to be clear
[17:14] <vensa> but is {do surla} a valid answer???
[17:15] <vensa> that seems wrong
[17:15] <UukGoblin> I'd just reply {go'i} ;-]
[17:15] == LogicallyDashing [~sanotehu@ool-457e1756.dyn.optonline.net] has joined #lojban
[17:15] <vensa> because e.g. {broda pa} is ungramatical
[17:15] <vensa> but I could have asked: {do mo xo gerku}?
[17:16] <@xalbo> ke'u Answering questions is weird anyway.
[17:16] == Amie [~Amie@122.172.26.171] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
[17:16] <vensa> I think full answers should be mandatory for questions with more than one question word
[17:17] <vensa> or perhaps: {.i}-seperated answers
[17:17] <UukGoblin> does {go'i} re-ask a {ma}/{mo} question?
[17:17] <vensa> {do .i. surla}
[17:17] <vensa> {broda .i pa}
[17:17] <vensa> uuk: yes IMO
[17:18] <vensa> you are repeating the question, leaving it in question form.
[17:18] <vensa> you could be asking yourself aloud
[17:18] <selpa`i> What?
[17:18] <vensa> or asking the listener to answer instead of you
[17:18] <@xalbo> There may be a case to be made for a I to separate answer words. It would also give an unambiguous way to answer a question instead of making a new, unrelated statement.
[17:18] <vensa> .iesai
[17:18] <UukGoblin> why 'unrelated'? ;-]
[17:18] == kucli [52e89185@gateway/web/freenode/ip.82.232.145.133] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[17:19] * vensa is so happy he's archiving these new ideas
[17:19] <UukGoblin> definitely related, although repeating a lot of what was said
[17:19] <@xalbo> Maybe not "unrelated", but "dodging the question"
[17:19] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has joined #lojban
[17:19] <vensa> uuk: the statement {do surla} answers the question {ma fanta lonu do mo} but it makes an unrelated statement
[17:20] <@xalbo> "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
[17:20] <UukGoblin> oh, I see
[17:20] <vensa> xalbo: "dodging questions should still be allowed"... just frowned upon :)
[17:21] <UukGoblin> I thought replying with a full sentence made an unrelated statement
[17:21] <vensa> no
[17:21] <@xalbo> Yes. But the point is that if you ask a question with {mo}, I need a way to *not* answer it, and any bridi I saw *will* answer it.
[17:22] <UukGoblin> mhm
[17:22] <vensa> xalbo: example?
[17:22] <tcatipax> mi na djuno?
[17:22] <@xalbo> ke'u "What were you doing with that woman I saw you with last night?" "The Phillies swept the NLCS."
[17:22] <UukGoblin> like, "What are you doing?" "Nice weather, isn't it?"
[17:22] <vensa> xalbo: how would that be in lojban? simpler version
[17:23] <vensa> xalbo: whats wrong with answering {do mo} with {lo tcima cu pluka}
[17:23] <vensa> ?
[17:23] <@xalbo> .i do mo le mi mensi / .i .yy lo tcima ku melbi
[17:23] <vensa> yeah. so whats the problem?
[17:24] == donri [~dag@unaffiliated/dagodenhall] has joined #lojban
[17:24] <@xalbo> Well, it *probably* carries over the x2, at least.
[17:24] <vensa> wha?!
[17:24] <vensa> why does it carry stuff over?
[17:24] <@xalbo> Think about it. Is not {cinba} a valid answer there?
[17:24] <vensa> you said {melbi}. not {go'i}. not {co'e}
[17:25] <vensa> yes. cinba is valid
[17:25] <vensa> BUT
[17:25] <vensa> the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
[17:25] <@xalbo> The answer to {mo} is some relationship such that its x1, x2, whatever other places were given to the {mo} make it true.
[17:25] <vensa> but the minute you replace the original x1 of the question with a diff x1, you are no longer answering the question. no?
[17:26] <@xalbo> I don't see where you get that from.
[17:26] <vensa> common sense
[17:26] <vensa> x1 or any other x
[17:26] <kribacr> Tuesday's coming. Did you bring your coat?
[17:27] <vensa> kribacr: is "Tuesday's coming" the answer?
[17:27] <kribacr> I live in a giant bucket.
[17:27] <vensa> kribacr: that is a y/n question.
[17:27] <vensa> so unless I answered go'i or na go'i I dodged your question
[17:28] <@xalbo> Well in {.i do mo / citka lo badna}, we're replacing in {lo badna} for the x2. Or is this new interpretive convention only for sumti that were previously explicitly filled?
[17:28] <vensa> hmmm
[17:28] <vensa> xalbo: in that example, you only ADDED X's. you didnt OVERRIDE any
[17:28] <vensa> IMO when you OVERRIDE one of them, it becomes a "dodging" statement
[17:29] == lojysmanix [~lojsmanix@mobile-166-137-141-126.mycingular.net] has quit [Quit: Colloquy for iPhone - http://colloquy.mobi]
[17:30] <UukGoblin> well
[17:30] <vensa> xalbo: also, I dont understand how my proposition about {i} seperating answers to a multiple-question question "solves" this for you
[17:31] <UukGoblin> let my put my question into the discussion, which is probably what xalbo already mentioned: say someone asks {do mo}, and you want to make an observative about a rain that's just started so you want to say {carvi}, but that'll make /you/ rain
[17:31] <@xalbo> My idea was to make a new I that would do nothing but separate/precede answers. Then {.i} would always be dodging, and the new I would be for answering.
[17:32] <kribacr> .i but for answers?
[17:32] <kribacr> I like that.
[17:32] <selpa`i> Hm..
[17:32] <kribacr> .i ma gletu ma
[17:32] <vensa> xalbo: ohhhh
[17:32] == MayDaniel [~MayDaniel@unaffiliated/maydaniel] has joined #lojban
[17:32] == ksion [Xion@210-dzi-2.acn.waw.pl] has joined #lojban
[17:32] <kribacr> new-I la .kribacr. new-I lo mamta be do
[17:32] <kribacr> .i'e
[17:32] <vensa> .u'isai
[17:33] <kribacr> Hmm.
[17:33] <selpa`i> Seems unnecessary
[17:33] <vensa> and {new-I la kribacr .i lo tcima} would be a partial answer
[17:33] <kribacr> Are there any CVV or CV'V that could be derived from ... danfu is it?
[17:34] <vensa> you could change {paunai} to mean "answer follows" :P
[17:35] <kribacr> Eww... no.
[17:35] <@xalbo> {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}.
[17:36] <vensa> uuk: in the {carvi} case I would just say {ti carvi} thereby overriding hte x1 {do} and making it into a statement not a question
[17:36] <vensa> valsi nolraitru
[17:36] <valsi> nolraitru = t1=n1 is a regent/monarch of t2 by standard n2.
[17:36] <@xalbo> Just *try* and change the topic on that one. Note that there are no places to override.
[17:36] == bortzmeyer [~bortzmeye@batilda.nic.fr] has quit [Quit: Leaving.]
[17:36] <vensa> xalbo: ooohhh
[17:36] <vensa> you got me
[17:37] <kribacr> D'oh, {dau} is taken.
[17:37] <kribacr> Stupid hex.
[17:37] <vensa> how about {mi na catra .i do bebna} :P
[17:38] == Amie [~Amie@122.172.26.171] has joined #lojban
[17:38] == tama [~tama@adsl-68-88-67-67.dsl.rcsntx.swbell.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 240 seconds]
[17:38] <UukGoblin> there was this meta-negator
[17:38] <UukGoblin> metalinguistic negator
[17:38] <UukGoblin> na'i
[17:39] <vensa> yes! good point Uk
[17:39] <vensa> it seems very handy here
[17:39] <vensa> {.i do catra le nolraitru ki'u lo nu mo}. {na'i}
[17:39] <vensa> I wanted to say also that the "new i" should be for cases where you DONT intend to answer becuz those are the less frequent cases
[17:40] <vensa> so using {na'i} for that purpose exactly seems brilliant. (and the intended way)
[17:41] <vensa> so the answer to the {carvi} problem would be. {.i na'i carvi}
[17:41] <UukGoblin> hm.
[17:41] <selpa`i> How do you say "this" as in "this house" ?
[17:42] <UukGoblin> I kinda thought {na'i} would mean "your question is wrong" rather than "I don't feel like answering it"
[17:42] <@xalbo> vensa: That says it's not raining.
[17:42] <UukGoblin> selpa`i, {ti}?
[17:42] <vensa> selpa'i {lo vi zdani}
[17:42] <@xalbo> selpa`i: {ti poi zdani}, roughly.
[17:42] * vensa is looking up na'i
[17:42] <@xalbo> (could also be {noi} instead of {poi})
[17:43] <selpa`i> Thx gusy.
[17:43] <kribacr> lo bu'u zdani
[17:43] <selpa`i> Guys.
[17:43] <dbrock-> I too would like to have a word that indicates that something is an answer
[17:43] <dbrock-> the opposite of {pau}
[17:44] <kribacr> Hmm. I wish there was more CVV and CV'V space available. ._.
[17:44] <vensa> xalbo: so, {na'i .i carvi}
[17:44] == Suprano [~Suprano@vpn-stud.rz-zw.fh-kl.de] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
[17:44] <dbrock-> if I got to choose, {pau nai} would mean "answer follows", {pau cu'i} would mean "question does not follow", and {pau nai cu'i} would mean "answer does not follow"
[17:45] <vensa> I still think maybe the word should be for "this is NOT an answer". I would hate to be required to utter another syllable for 99% of the time
[17:45] <@xalbo> dbrock-: Then I'm glad you don't get to choose.
[17:45] <dbrock-> :)
[17:45] <@xalbo> Sorry, had to go there, but I don't think that's a natural scale at all, and it changes way too much.
[17:45] <kribacr> da'au
[17:46] <vensa> dbrock: does {pau} currently have a {cu'i}?
[17:46] <dbrock-> yeah, I think of {UI nai} as being a separate scale
[17:46] <dbrock-> but that's not how most people think of it
[17:46] == kpreid [~kpreid@128.153.178.194] has quit [Quit: Offline]
[17:46] <@xalbo> I just don't like {.i} between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
[17:46] <vensa> xalbo: what was that an answer to?
[17:47] <dbrock-> to me, the {pau} scale would be "how much of a question is this", whereas the {pau nai} scale would be "how much of an answer is this"
[17:47] <dbrock-> so you could have {pau pau nai} for "answering with a question"
[17:47] <vensa> how about {pauna'i} for "I dont intent to answer you"? :P
[17:47] <dbrock-> well, {pau nai pau} would be a more natural order, I guess
[17:48] <@xalbo> vensa: What was what an answer to?
[17:48] == urandom_ [~user@p548A63A4.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lojban
[17:49] <@xalbo> ({ge'i}, for instance, I don't think can be answered except with a whole sentence)
[17:49] <dbrock-> {fu'e pau nai i broda i brode i brodi fu'o}?
[17:49] <vensa> xalbo: the statement you said above the statement I said that asked tha
[17:49] <vensa> *that
[17:49] <dbrock-> for a three-part-answer
[17:49] == tcatipax [d9ab814a@gateway/web/freenode/ip.217.171.129.74] has quit [Quit: Page closed]
[17:50] <@xalbo> vensa: Just quote the mabla sentence.
[17:50] <vensa> valsi ge'i
[17:50] <valsi> ge'i = logical connective: forethought all but tanru-internal connective question (with gi).
[17:50] <vensa> <@xalbo> I just don't like {.i} between multiple parts of the same answer. And I think even then I'm not sure all answers can be done without restating the whole sentence.
[17:50] <vensa> gerna ge
[17:50] <gerna> not grammatical: ge ⚠
[17:50] <vensa> gerna e
[17:50] <gerna> (0e)0
[17:50] <vensa> hmmm.. geks alone seem to be ungramatical
[17:50] <dbrock-> gerna ge co'e gi co'e
[17:50] <gerna> (0[ge {co'e VAU} gi {co'e VAU} VAU])0
[17:51] <vensa> gerna ge gi
[17:51] <gerna> not grammatical: ge _gi_ ⚠
[17:51] <dbrock-> what's the problem with that?
[17:51] <vensa> yeah, xalbo?
[17:51] <@xalbo> Means that a question with {ge'i} is harder to answer.
[17:51] == urandom__ [~user@p548A498A.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 265 seconds]
[17:51] <vensa> not if we add implied {gi} to the grammar parser
[17:51] <dbrock-> true
[17:51] <@xalbo> At least, the only way to answer it is to make an entire bridi, not just fill in the blank.
[17:52] <dbrock-> I guess you could answer with an afterthought connective?
[17:52] <vensa> de'a
[17:52] <@xalbo> Um, *{ge gi} isn't legal either.
[17:53] <dbrock-> see any problem with answering with afterthoughts, xalbo?
[17:54] <@xalbo> Don't know. In general it's odd to answer with something other than the form of the question.
[17:58] == Suprano [~Suprano@p57B13280.dip.t-dialin.net] has joined #lojban
[17:59] == syllogism [~syllogism@173.216.64.250] has quit [Read error: Connection reset by peer]
[18:00] <vensa> dbrock: a question could contain both {ge'i} AND {ji} so that answering in a diff form would be confusing
[18:00] <vensa> xalbo: add implied co'es too and you'll get {ge co'e gi co'e}
[18:01] <@xalbo> If you try to answer out of order, though, you *really* screw things up, so I don't think that's a problem.
[18:01] <vensa> xalbo: why do you think {.i} between multiple parts of a fragmented answer cant be a complete reply?
[18:03] <@xalbo> {.i} separates bridi by the same speaker. That seems pretty different from separating fragments that are all used to fill parts of a single bridi.
[18:03] <vensa> why?
[18:03] == Suprano [~Suprano@p57B13280.dip.t-dialin.net] has quit [Ping timeout: 245 seconds]
[18:03] <vensa> ma tavla ma -> .i mi .i do
[18:04] <vensa> means: {.i mi tavla .i do se tavla}
[18:04] <vensa> (remeber the implied co'e)
[18:04] <@xalbo> That seems very different from {mi tavla do}.
[18:05] <vensa> why? context welds them together IMO
[18:05] <vensa> how do you solve the {do surla} bug with something other than a seperating {i}?
[18:06] <dbrock-> xalbo has already proposed the addition of new I
[18:06] <vensa> oh.
[18:06] <vensa> so {newI mi newI do} is acceptable xalbo?
[18:06] <dbrock-> danfu ze'ei i mi danfu ze'ei i do
[18:06] <@xalbo> Seems much more so, yes.
[18:07] <vensa> i c
[18:07] <vensa> fine we need the newI for other things too (specifying dodging answers)
[18:07] <@xalbo> (I'd still probably just answer {mi do}, but for more complicated ones, yes)
[18:07] <dbrock-> I don't really see why we need a new I
[18:08] <@xalbo> The point is that if newI is for answering, then oldI (spelled {.i}) keeps its completely normal function, which just happens to work out to question dodging.
[18:08] <dbrock-> well, it's not a matter of need, of course
[18:08] <vensa> in that case I am "for" dbrock's {paunai} def
[18:08] <dbrock-> but I mean other similar things are solved using UI
[18:08] <@xalbo> (and in most cases, you start speaking without either, so there's no problem)
[18:09] <vensa> xalbo: isnt there an implied {oldI} at the start?
[18:09] <@xalbo> I strongly oppose changing {pau nai}. You can argue for a UI, but you can't have that one.
[18:09] <dbrock-> I don't propose changing {pau nai}
[18:09] <dbrock-> you can't do things like that
[18:10] <vensa> {paucu'i} is currently undefined
[18:10] <dbrock-> it's impossible, so debating it is a waste of time
[18:10] <vensa> dbrock: 1. anything is posible
[18:10] <vensa> 2. didt you suggest that earlier?
[18:10] <vensa> http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=BPFK+Section%3A+Discursives
[18:10] <UukGoblin> hm.
[18:11] <dbrock-> I have long been an advocate of thinking of {UI ja'ai} and {UI nai} as completely separate scales
[18:12] <vensa> so you did suggest to change {paunai}
[18:12] <UukGoblin> with stuff like 'paunai', what is there to distinguish between definitions like 'answer follows', 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'?
[18:12] <dbrock-> that's why I said "if I got to choose, {pau nai} would mean "answer follows" "
[18:12] <UukGoblin> :-]
[18:12] <dbrock-> I didn't say "I propose we change the meaning of {pau nai}"
[18:12] <vensa> oh
[18:12] <vensa> I read that as that
[18:13] <vensa> who cares about the old meaning of {paunai} its probably rarely been used
[18:13] <dbrock-> yeah, I can see how you'd read it as a proposal
[18:13] <@xalbo> (Note that I also didn't say "we need a new I" but "a case could be made for a new I"
[18:13] <dbrock-> {pau nai} has seen significant enough use that people will just say "NO"
[18:13] <vensa> uuk: what you mean by 'no question follows' or 'unquestion follows'
[18:13] <dbrock-> and the only effect of trying to change its meaning will be to cement the old meaning even further
[18:13] <vensa> xalbo :)
[18:14] <vensa> "cement"?
[18:14] <UukGoblin> vensa, "the following is not meant to be intepreted as a question" and "the following is meant to cancel the question in question"
[18:15] <vensa> I am very much an advocate of changing the old for the benefit of the future. as an answer to the nay-saying conservatives I have proposed the "version\scripting" system
[18:15] <UukGoblin> cementing is a popular technique of postponing trouble with blown up nuclear reactors for later
[18:15] <vensa> uuk: regular {i} is the first. and you cant obliterate a question once it was asked. you can just choose to not answer it with regular {i}
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[18:17] <UukGoblin> vensa, nah, it's kinda not my question... my problem is {pau nai} is a cluster, but because {pau} can be negated in different ways, doesn't it make {pau nai} a bit ambiguous?