WikiDiscuss

I had to look up {ti'o}, since the first thing I thought of was {ctino}. From the definition in the ma'oste, it appears to be for indicating that addition has precedence over multiplication, or something like that, to avoid having to insert lots of parentheses.

On 6/15/07, PierreAbbat <wikidiscuss@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> I had to look up {ti'o}, since the first thing I thought of was {ctino}.

I had no recollection of it when I looked at this section again,
even though I had written the definition and created an example before!

> From the definition in the ma'oste, it appears to be for indicating that
> addition has precedence over multiplication, or something like that,
> to avoid having to insert lots of parentheses.

I wrote the example with quantifier scope instead of operator scope,
so as to avoid MEX, but if we could just make the cmavo disappear,
that would be even better.

This is what CLL has to say about it:

----- CLL quote ------
As mentioned earlier, Lojban does provide a way for the precedences
of operators to be explicitly declared, although current parsers do not
understand these declarations.

The declaration is made in the form of a metalinguistic comment using
``ti'o, a member of selma'o SEI. ``sei, the other member of SEI, is used
to insert metalinguistic comments on a bridi which give information about
the discourse which the bridi comprises. The format of a ``ti'o'' declaration
has not been formally established, but presumably would take the form
of mentioning a mekso operator and then giving it either an absolute
numerical precedence on some pre-established scale, or else specifying
relative precedences between new operators and existing operators.

In future, we hope to create an improved machine parser that can
understand declarations of the precedences of simple operators belonging
to selma'o VUhU. Originally, all operators would have the same precedence.
Declarations would have the effect of raising the specified cmavo of VUhU
to higher precedence levels. Complex operators formed with ``na'u, ``ni'e,
or ``ma'o'' would remain at the standard low precedence; declarations with
respect to them are for future implementation efforts. It is probable that
such a parser would have a set of ``commonly assumed precedences'' built
into it (selectable by a special ``ti'o'' declaration) that would match
mathematical intuition: times higher than plus, and so on.
-----end CLL quote----

I have no idea what kind of selbri was planned to be used with "ti'o"
to indicate unusual scope.

Should we remove this cmavo from this section and move it to MEX?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

On Friday 15 June 2007 13:05, Jorge Llambías wrote:
> I have no idea what kind of selbri was planned to be used with "ti'o"
> to indicate unusual scope.
>
> Should we remove this cmavo from this section and move it to MEX?

I agree. The proper way to indicate quantifier scope is with a prenex.

Pierre

On 6/15/07, Pierre Abbat <phma@phma.optus.nu> wrote:

> On Friday 15 June 2007 13:05, Jorge Llambas wrote:
> > I have no idea what kind of selbri was planned to be used with "ti'o"
> > to indicate unusual scope.
> >
> > Should we remove this cmavo from this section and move it to MEX?
>
> I agree. The proper way to indicate quantifier scope is with a prenex.

OK, done (if there are objections we can put it back).
{ti'o fatne} didn't sound very well to me anyway.

mu'o mi'e xorxes