BPFK Section: Text Structure cmavo Posted by rlpowell on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 01:52 GMT posts: 14214 Use this thread to discuss the BPFK Section: Text Structure cmavo page.
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 01:56 GMT posts: 14214 I took the liberty of inserting pre-formatted definitions of the words as they stand. This is *all* members of the selma'o in question, so don't worry about missing any. I've used no'i a few times in my own fiction writings, which haven't been released yet. Also, I get 28 hits from http://www.teddyb.org/~rlpowell/hobbies/lojban/grammar/test_sentences.txt, some from Alice but most from IRC. -Robin
Posted by PierreAbbat on Mon 15 of Nov, 2004 02:32 GMT posts: 324 > A prenex can consist of one or more terms. This is understood from the YACC grammar. Do I need to define a term here? Yes, please define the term "term"! ;) -phma
Posted by rlpowell on Thu 27 of Jan, 2005 21:41 GMT posts: 14214 I just discovered that I hadn't reviewed this section, when I thought I had. .u'u sai My requests: s/to make a free modifier/to make a free modifier, which can be placed almost anywhere in Lojban text/ (in lieu of actually defining what a free modifier is). Please expand the definition of zo'u a bit. Mention the topic comment thingy, and that it is used in logical contexts to logically quantify terms in advance of their usage. As phma said, defining "term" would be nice too. -Robin
Posted by arj on Sat 29 of Jan, 2005 21:09 GMT posts: 953 On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Please expand the definition of zo'u a bit. Mention the topic comment > thingy, and that it is used in logical contexts to logically quantify > terms in advance of their usage. As phma said, defining "term" would be > nice too. I absolutely agree. However, I have no idea WTF a "term" is. I would appreciate any suggestions. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. (Wethern's Law)
Posted by rlpowell on Sat 29 of Jan, 2005 21:09 GMT posts: 14214 On Sat, Jan 29, 2005 at 09:25:06PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Thu, 27 Jan 2005 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > >Please expand the definition of zo'u a bit. Mention the topic > >comment thingy, and that it is used in logical contexts to > >logically quantify terms in advance of their usage. As phma > >said, defining "term" would be nice too. > > I absolutely agree. However, I have no idea WTF a "term" is. I > would appreciate any suggestions. The CLL section on ce'e, in the connectives chapter, explains this, as I said on IRC. It's a sumti or a tag + sumti. -Robin
Posted by rlpowell on Sat 29 of Jan, 2005 21:13 GMT posts: 14214 One more thing: zo'u should say a bit about prenexes, i.e. that they ont come at the beginning of a sentence. And perhaps s/following sentence/rest of the sentence/ -Robin
Posted by arj on Sun 30 of Jan, 2005 00:38 GMT posts: 953 On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > Re: BPFK Section: Text Structure cmavo > One more thing: zo'u should say a bit about prenexes, i.e. that they ont > come at the beginning of a sentence. Pardon? > And perhaps s/following sentence/rest of the sentence/ That is a bit better, I agree. The only thing is I have doubts that "sentence" is well-defined enough. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Assumption is the mother of all screw-ups. (Wethern's Law)
Posted by rlpowell on Sun 30 of Jan, 2005 00:38 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 12:10:57AM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 wikidiscuss@lojban.org wrote: > > >Re: BPFK Section: Text Structure cmavo > > >One more thing: zo'u should say a bit about prenexes, i.e. that > >they ont come at the beginning of a sentence. > > Pardon? s/ont/only/ > >And perhaps s/following sentence/rest of the sentence/ > > That is a bit better, I agree. The only thing is I have doubts > that "sentence" is well-defined enough. The bit between successive .i, NIhO, LU or TUhE. -Robin
Posted by xorxes on Mon 31 of Jan, 2005 12:33 GMT posts: 1912 > > The only thing is I have doubts > > that "sentence" is well-defined enough. > > The bit between successive .i, NIhO, LU or TUhE. LU is not directly related to sentences: inside it can have more than one sentence, and as a whole it is just a sumti. In parser terms, a sentence is a selbri plus zero or more preceding and/or following terms, the prenex is not defined as a part of a sentence. Maybe it would be better to use {bridi} for that. We can of course define the prenex as part of a sentence. The bit between succesive .i can also include fragments. Is a fragment a sentence? Also, at the start of text we can have weird stuff that can't appear between succesive .i, for example {djan ua} (but not, for some reason, {ua djan}). Is {djan ua} a sentence? TUhE can bracket more than one sentence. Is the bracketed result just one sentence? mu'o mi'e xorxes __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more. http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
Posted by rlpowell on Mon 31 of Jan, 2005 19:01 GMT posts: 14214 On Sun, Jan 30, 2005 at 07:50:13AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote: > > --- Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > > The only thing is I have doubts that "sentence" is > > > well-defined enough. > > > > The bit between successive .i, NIhO, LU or TUhE. > > LU is not directly related to sentences: inside it can have more > than one sentence, and as a whole it is just a sumti. True. > In parser terms, a sentence is a selbri plus zero or more > preceding and/or following terms, the prenex is not defined as a > part of a sentence. Maybe it would be better to use {bridi} for > that. Oh. You're right. A prenex can, in fact, be followed by multiple logically joined sentences as well. Let's just say that a prenex comes before one or more logically connected Lojban sentences, OK? -Robin
