History: Subsequent UI Cmavo

Source of version: 1 (current)

{CODE(wrap="1")}[13:17] <vensa> {le'ai} alone means "I made an error, you should know what it is" [13:17] <vensa> {le'aidai} means "I believe *you* made an error" [13:18] <donri> valsi: le'ai (class) [13:18] <valsi> le'ai (class) = LEhAI [13:18] <donri> No it doesn't. [13:18] <donri> It means {le'ai ge'edai} [13:18] <vensa> http://vlasisku.lojban.org/le'ai [13:18] <donri> I made an error and I sense you emote something. [13:18] <donri> valsi: le'ai (notes) [13:18] <valsi> le'ai (notes) = The {lo'ai} ... {sa'ai} ... {le'ai} replacement construct asks the listener to replace the text after {lo'ai} with the text after {sa'ai}.; The order {sa'ai} ... {lo'ai} ... {le'ai} is also allowed, and either or both parts can be omitted and thus left up to context. When both parts are omitted, the word {le'ai} on its own indicates that a mistake was made while leaving all the details up to context.; It is also possible to attach SAI to a le'a [13:19] <vensa> dbrock seemed to think otherwise when he coined it [13:19] <vensa> maybe his def shouldnt be gramatical [13:19] <donri> Yea but dbrock is confused about the grammar. :) [13:20] <donri> valsi: dai (class) [13:20] <valsi> dai (class) = UI5 [13:20] <vensa> but thats a whole discussion topic about wether CAI can be attached to non-ui and what does that mean [13:20] <ksion> It is also possible to attach SAI to a le'ai -- This is pretty clear. [13:20] <donri> Hm, maybe I'm confused about the grammar. [13:20] <donri> I thought dai was a CAI and CAI only attach to UI otherwise an implicit ge'e [13:20] <ksion> Oh, {dai} is UI5. [13:20] <dbrock-> I use {le’ai dai} [13:20] <ksion> mabla selma'o [13:20] <vensa> ksion: it's very clear. except there is no SAI. it's CAI [13:21] <donri> But UI attachment is ambiguous, so it could ambigously be used that way maybe. [13:21] <donri> Ambigous because UI normally do not attach to UI but UI4 does. Crazy shit. [13:21] <vensa> yes. unless it was explicitly defined in the def of {lo'ai}, which it has [13:21] <vensa> so no ambiguity :) [13:22] <kucli> each time i write something, everybody is waking up and write something [13:22] <kucli> u'i [13:22] <donri> vensa: It's not clear if notes are authoritative. [13:23] <kucli> each time i write something, everybody here wakes up and write something * [13:23] <vensa> UI attaching to UI is specifically left ambiguos in CLL [13:23] <donri> Also, I don't like the idea that definitions can contradict grammar. [13:23] <vensa> donri: I agree [13:23] <donri> Some defined cmavo clusters might already, and it's not clear if that's authoritative or suggestive. [13:23] <vensa> but, having a UI (dai) attach to {le'ai} doesnt seem to defy the grammar in this case [13:24] <vensa> I think the notes are part of the def [13:24] <donri> UI4 should probably move to CAI (maybe dai too) [13:24] <vensa> maybe [13:24] <vensa> but take UI5 with you :) [13:25] <donri> Maybe all of UI5 should be CAI. [13:25] <donri> "Modifiers" by definition. [13:27] <donri> vensa: It doesn't defy the grammar because the grammar is unclear. [13:27] <vensa> true. like i said. there is some debate on the subject of CAI and UI [13:28] <donri> UI should not attach to UI and CAI should only attach to UI (or implicit ge'e) and UI modifiers (UI4 and UI5) should as modifiers attach to UI like CAI. [13:28] <vensa> says you :) [13:28] <vensa> maybe I agree [13:28] <donri> {iu ui} is two emotions, not {ui} modifying {iu} [13:28] <vensa> I forget the "for" and "against" statement [13:29] <donri> {iu ro'u} though suddenly is {ro'u} modifying {iu} [13:29] <donri> {ie [nai]}? [13:29] <vensa> donri: imo {iu ui} is also {ui} modifying {iu} [13:29] <donri> No it isn't. [13:29] <vensa> the CLL is unclear on this point [13:30] <vensa> and I support that it is. becuz otherwise you have less options to construct interesting UIs [13:30] <donri> No you don't. [13:30] <vensa> in your description: {iu ui} is the same as {ui iu} - shame [13:30] <donri> It's two separate but concurrent emotions. Effectively they might affect each other but not grammatically. [13:31] <donri> If they do modify you can't say it without modifying. [13:31] <donri> And then the order becomes relevant too. [13:31] <vensa> you can IMO: {iu fu'e ui} [13:31] <vensa> or. {iu .i ui} [13:31] <donri> That's the same thing [13:31] <donri> And .i changes everything [13:31] <donri> Can't put that mid sentence. [13:32] <vensa> well, I'm sure we could define a way [13:32] <vensa> maybe even introduce a new cmavo for that [13:32] <vensa> the whole point is that "as of CLL" it is purposely unclear [13:32] <donri> Or let UI not explicitly modify each other and just accept that they tend to in reality. [13:32] <vensa> so if we want to go one way or the toher, of course we need to revise the def [13:33] <vensa> maybe [13:33] <donri> Maybe could allow {bo} to bind UI or something [13:33] <vensa> I might go either way [13:33] <donri> iu bo ui [13:33] <vensa> it's open to discussion [13:33] <vensa> but right now: [13:33] <vensa> {de'a jundi} [13:33] <donri> The main point is that the current situation is ambiguous.{CODE}