WikiDiscuss

> !! Examples of ba'e Usage
>
> The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u
> with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be
> pathological.

"lo'u...le'u"?

> ko pensi depsna ba'e bu
> Think about "hesitation sound" AS A LETTER.
>
> ko pensi lo depsna .e zo ba'e bu
> Think about the hesitation sound, and the emphasis letter.

These presumably need a {ma'o}.

> lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei cinmo cu nandu
> ''Explaning the emphasis-emotion is difficult.

Wouldn't that be the emphasis-emoter?

> The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u
> with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be
> pathological.
>
> da zei fa'o cu mutce cizra lujvo
> "da type-of fa'o" is a very strange lujvo.

lu da zei fa'o li'u

> mi cusku .ui zei nai bu
> I wrote a frowny face.
> Literally "happy type-of not letter".

cusku -> ciska

Prsumably {ma'o ui zei nai bu}.

> zo bu zei sa si zo bu zei su cu mupli
> "bu type-of sa", I mean, "bu type-of su" is an example.

lu zo bu zei sa si zo bu zei su li'u

> !! Proposed Definition of xi
>
> ;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the following
> number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used almost anywhere, but
> is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical expressions.

I think we should specify "almost anywhere".

Indicators attach to the immediately preceding word, unless it belongs to
a magic word construct, in which case it attaches to the whole construct:

(zo da) ui
(da zei de) ui
(da bu) ui
(lo'u ... le'u) ui
(zoi da ... da) ui

If the immediately preceding word is a si/sa/su the indicator will
skip the erased construct, if it's BAhE, BAhE acts first and the
whole thing acts as an indicator towards its preceding word/construct.

Those restrictions all follow from left to right processing, so they
are easy to remember. But free modifiers have additional restrictions,
which are harder to remember.

I don't know if this list is complete:

1- They can't come between two CMENE
2- They can't come between two NIhO's
3- They can't come between I and BO in {I joikstag BO}
4- They can't come between I and joik-jek in {I joik-jek}
5- They can't come between NAhE and BO in {NAhE BO}
6- They can't come between GOhA and RAhO in {GOhA RAhO}
7- They can't come between NU and NAI in {NU NAI}
8- They can't come between digits/lerfu in a number or lerfu-string
9- They can't come between components of a connective e.g. {NA SE A NAI}
10- They can't come after a full connective in some contexts
11- They can't come between components of a compound tag
12- They can't come after a full tag in some contexts
13- They can't come after COI or DOI

Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even though
we probably won't want to use them in any of these places very often,
it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers behaved just
like indicators as much as possible.

> * A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no ideas are
> coming to mind.

XI NAI was proposed for this.

> ! Impact
>
> * ba'e can no longer be attached to zei or bu on the left (or anything else
> on the left, for that matter) without using zo.

"Attached" here means that it can't be used by those words. BAhE itself
can do its thing to them.

> * zei structures are now a single word.

For the purposes of following magic words. (Not for preceding magic words.)

> ! Proposed New cmavo
>
> * Another member of ZEI with reverse-order modified-modifier semantics.
> ** The shepherd doesn't consider this terribly important, but it certainly
> would help match the rest of the language, which is very configurable.

Ordinary lujvo would use -col- for this, so there's always
{... zei co zei ...}.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > !! Proposed Definition of xi
> >
> > ;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the
> > following number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used
> > almost anywhere, but is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical
> > expressions.
>
> I think we should specify "almost anywhere".

Will respond to rest later, but I think that's a VERY BAD IDEA.

XI is part of free. I count 71 relevant instances of free in
grammar.300

Even in the relatively simple (for this purpose) PEG grammar, I
count 54 lines with free in them, for a total of 135 actual
instances.

We can try to define all the places they are useful, but that's a
very different thing.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

---

>
> > I think we should specify "almost anywhere".
>
> Will respond to rest later, but I think that's a VERY BAD IDEA.
>
> XI is part of free. I count 71 relevant instances of free in
> grammar.300

Of course, it's easier to specify it by saying where
it is NOT allowed. That's why I made the list.

> Even in the relatively simple (for this purpose) PEG grammar, I
> count 54 lines with free in them, for a total of 135 actual
> instances.
>
> We can try to define all the places they are useful, but that's a
> very different thing.

I'd like to be able to learn the language in full. That means
knowing exactly where free modifiers can be used without having
to go and look at the formal grammar. That's why I want the grammar
to be as simple as possible, so it can be learned in full.
When a free modifier cannot be used in some place, it is easier
to learn the rule if it comes with a reason other than that
it just can't. The rules for where indicators can or cannot
be used are fairly straightforward. The rules for free modifiers
are not.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:

> Indicators attach to the immediately preceding word,

Semantically, though, an indicator on a terminator refers to the entire
terminated construct.

> Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even though
> we probably won't want to use them in any of these places very often,
> it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers behaved just
> like indicators as much as possible.

I absolutely agree. If we are going to PEGylate Lojban, I would be
very much in favor of removing the arbitrary restrictions on freemods
to make them as grammar-free as possible. The long-term trend during
periods of grammar development was to make them show up in as many
places as yacc would permit, and the more the merrier.

(Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI clauses
embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.)

> Ordinary lujvo would use -col- for this, so there's always
> {... zei co zei ...}.

+1

--
Long-short-short, long-short-short / Dactyls in dimeter,
Verse form with choriambs / (Masculine rhyme): jcowan@reutershealth.com
One sentence (two stanzas) / Hexasyllabically http://www.reutershealth.com
Challenges poets who / Don't have the time. --robison who's at texas dot net

---

> Jorge Llamb�as scripsit:
>
> > Indicators attach to the immediately preceding word,
>
> Semantically, though, an indicator on a terminator refers to the entire
> terminated construct.

Right. I had written "indicators modify the immediately preceding
word" but changed to "attach to" because of that. Not only
terminators work like that. For example {le ji'a broda} is
supposedly the same as {le broda ku ji'a}. So "which constructs
can an indicator modify?" is a different question from "which words
can an indicator attach to?".

> > Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even though
> > we probably won't want to use them in any of these places very often,
> > it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers behaved just
> > like indicators as much as possible.
>
> I absolutely agree. If we are going to PEGylate Lojban, I would be
> very much in favor of removing the arbitrary restrictions on freemods
> to make them as grammar-free as possible. The long-term trend during
> periods of grammar development was to make them show up in as many
> places as yacc would permit, and the more the merrier.
>
> (Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI clauses
> embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.)

In fact, that one would seem to be the only limitation required.
All other free modifiers are bounded on both sides:

SEI.../SEhU/
SOI.../SEhU/
COI/DOI.../DOhU/
TO.../TOI/
XI.../BOI/
XI VEI.../VEhO/

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

---

> > (Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI clauses
> > embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.)
>
> In fact, that one would seem to be the only limitation required.
> All other free modifiers are bounded on both sides:
>
> SEI.../SEhU/
> SOI.../SEhU/
> COI/DOI.../DOhU/
> TO.../TOI/
> XI.../BOI/
> XI VEI.../VEhO/

Vocatives won't be embeddable inside another vocative
before the DOI either, so that's two limitations.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

>>!! Examples of ba'e Usage
>>
>>The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u
>>with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be
>>pathological.
>>
>>
>>ko pensi depsna ba'e bu
>>Think about "hesitation sound" AS A LETTER.
>>
>>ko pensi lo depsna .e zo ba'e bu
>>Think about the hesitation sound, and the emphasis letter.
>>
>>
>
>These presumably need a {ma'o}.
>
>
You mean {me'o}. There's a lot of use/mention confusion when talking
about letters. We need to remember that any BY (including any *-BU) is
a variable/pronoun referring to something. {ba'e bu} might be more
natural in a context like {mi viska cy.ebu} {ki'a .i pau do viska cy .e
ma} {.i ke'u mi viska cy .e ba'e bu}--only if bu doesn't quote ba'e.

>>The following examples are intended to illustrate interactions of lo'u...le'u
>>with other words of special grammatical effect, and hence may be
>>pathological.
>>
>>da zei fa'o cu mutce cizra lujvo
>>"da type-of fa'o" is a very strange lujvo.
>>
>>
>
>lu da zei fa'o li'u
>
>
In which case we're inside a lu/li'u and the question of whether zei
quotes fa'o is a moot point, since we have fa'o quoted by lu/li'u.

Something like {le skami cu cusku lo skami zei fa'o mi}, "The computer
emitted a computer-typeof-end-of-file at me". Stilted, but conceivable.

I note that allowing {zei} to skip over preceding {ba'e}s (i.e. {da ba'e
zei de} means the same thing as {da zei de} except that the joining and
new part-of-speech is emphasized) doesn't really lose us anything, since
anything that {zei} could make with {ba'e} could almost certainly be
made with {basna}.

>>mi cusku .ui zei nai bu
>>I wrote a frowny face.
>>Literally "happy type-of not letter".
>>
>>
>
>cusku -> ciska
>
>Prsumably {ma'o ui zei nai bu}.
>
>
me'o again.

Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu? For that matter, is {.ui bu}
different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?

>>!! Proposed Definition of xi
>>
>>;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the following
>>number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used almost anywhere, but
>>is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical expressions.
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no ideas are
>>coming to mind.
>>
>>
>
>XI NAI was proposed for this.
>
>
Isn't this kind of literal? "Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low;
it just means this number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this
particular instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not
typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts
typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI boys,
etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways of
attaching numbers to things.

>>! Impact
>>
>>* ba'e can no longer be attached to zei or bu on the left (or anything else
>>on the left, for that matter) without using zo.
>>
>>
>
>"Attached" here means that it can't be used by those words. BAhE itself
>can do its thing to them.
>
>
I submit, as above, that this is no great loss. {basna zei ...} and
{basna bu} can do approximately the same thing.

~mark

On Wednesday 17 November 2004 23:00, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no ideas are
> >>coming to mind.
> >
> >XI NAI was proposed for this.
>
> Isn't this kind of literal? "Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low;
> it just means this number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this
> particular instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not
> typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts
> typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI boys,
> etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways of
> attaching numbers to things.

We should distinguish between the way 92 is attached to 'U' and the way 238
is, though for the meaning we can say {be fi'o teryratni li}.

phma
--
li ze te'a ci vu'u ci bi'e te'a mu du
li ci su'i ze te'a mu bi'e vu'u ci

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> These presumably need a {ma'o}.
>
> > lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei cinmo cu nandu
> > ''Explaning the emphasis-emotion is difficult.
>
> Wouldn't that be the emphasis-emoter?

Oh, so it would. Fixed by increasing pathalogicality.

> > mi cusku .ui zei nai bu
> > I wrote a frowny face.
> > Literally "happy type-of not letter".
>
> cusku -> ciska

Well, cusku can go either way, but OK.

> > ;xi (XI): Subscript. Subscript indicator. Attaches the
> > following number or letteral string as a subscript. Can be used
> > almost anywhere, but is mostly used on sumti and in mathematical
> > expressions.
>
> I think we should specify "almost anywhere".

I hate you.

This part responded to seperately.

-Robin

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:00:53PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> >lu da zei fa'o li'u
> >
> >
> In which case we're inside a lu/li'u and the question of whether zei
> quotes fa'o is a moot point, since we have fa'o quoted by lu/li'u.

• NO*. lu...li'u does *not* remove the grammatical effects of what's

inside it; the fa'o functions normally.

> I note that allowing {zei} to skip over preceding {ba'e}s (i.e.
> {da ba'e zei de} means the same thing as {da zei de} except that
> the joining and new part-of-speech is emphasized) doesn't really
> lose us anything, since anything that {zei} could make with {ba'e}
> could almost certainly be made with {basna}.

Even if we couldn't, we can use "zo" on the left to fix this.

> Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu? For that matter, is {.ui bu}
> different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?

Well, grammatically it is different, obviously. Semantically, I
think not.

> >>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no
> >>ideas are coming to mind.
> >
> >XI NAI was proposed for this.
>
> Isn't this kind of literal?

I think so, yes. XI NAI, I mean.

> "Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low; it just means this
> number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this particular
> instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not
> typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts
> typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI
> boys, etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways
> of attaching numbers to things.

I think I disagree with that, but not seriously. If we're to go
with your interpretation, XI needs to be largely re-written.

-Robin

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 12:59:52PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
>
> --- Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > > (Of course there will still be limitations; we don't want MAI
> > > clauses embedded inside numbers or lerfu strings.)
> >
> > In fact, that one would seem to be the only limitation required.
> > All other free modifiers are bounded on both sides:
> >
> > SEI.../SEhU/
> > SOI.../SEhU/
> > COI/DOI.../DOhU/
> > TO.../TOI/
> > XI.../BOI/
> > XI VEI.../VEhO/
>
> Vocatives won't be embeddable inside another vocative
> before the DOI either, so that's two limitations.

For those of you who would like to play along at home:

free <- SEI-clause free* (terms CU-clause? free*)? selbri SEhU-clause? /

SOI-clause free* sumti sumti? SEhU-clause? /

vocative relative-clauses? selbri relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? /

vocative relative-clauses? (CMENE !BU-clause !ZEI-clause)+ free* relative-clauses? DOhU-clause? /

vocative sumti? DOhU-clause? /

(number / lerfu-string) MAI-clause /

TO-clause text TOI-clause? /

xi-clause

xi-clause <- XI-clause free* (number / lerfu-string) BOI-clause? /

XI-clause free* VEI-clause free* mex VEhO-clause?

vocative <- (COI-clause NAI-clause?)+ DOI-clause / (COI-clause NAI-clause?) (COI-clause NAI-clause?)* /

DOI-clause

SELMAhO-clause == SELMAhO, in general. Yay SA handling.

-Robin

On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> But free modifiers have additional restrictions, which are harder
> to remember.
>
> I don't know if this list is complete:
>
> 1- They can't come between two CMENE
> 2- They can't come between two NIhO's
> 3- They can't come between I and BO in {I joikstag BO}
> 4- They can't come between I and joik-jek in {I joik-jek}
> 5- They can't come between NAhE and BO in {NAhE BO}
> 6- They can't come between GOhA and RAhO in {GOhA RAhO}
> 7- They can't come between NU and NAI in {NU NAI}

WTF does NU+NAI *mean*, by the way?

> 8- They can't come between digits/lerfu in a number or lerfu-string
> 9- They can't come between components of a connective e.g. {NA SE A NAI}
> 10- They can't come after a full connective in some contexts
> 11- They can't come between components of a compound tag
> 12- They can't come after a full tag in some contexts
> 13- They can't come after COI or DOI
>
> Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even
> though we probably won't want to use them in any of these places
> very often, it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers
> behaved just like indicators as much as possible.

I'm not reading your list carefully; here's what I can see:

In fact, as far as I can tell, free can *never* come after NAI. I
don't know why this is.

Oh, wait, that's not quite true; there are a few cases. But only a
few.

In particular, it can't come after the NAI that's allowed at the
beginning of text.

It can't come after SI or SA.

14 - Between tag? and TUhE.

15 - Anywhere at all in stag, tag, and their descendants (ignoring
the fact that I've added "/ tense-modal (joik-jek tense-modal)*" to
stag in my version). To wit, the following contain no instances of "free":
tag, stag, simple-tense-modal, time, time-offset, space, space-offset,
space-interval, space-int-props, interval-property

16 - After or within an ek, gihek, jek, joik, or interval. IOW, A,
GIhA, JA, JOI, GAhO, BIhI, and all SE, NA and NAI combianations
thereof.

Exceptions: Fragmentary ek and gihek can be followed by free.
joik-ek and joik-jek both allow free at the end. That appears to be
it.

17 - Betweeen NA and KU in NA+KU

18 - Anywhere in a ZOI. Other magic words cases.

18 - After or withion vocative, indicators, and indicator. This is probably a
good thing.

19 - After LU.

20 - After LEhU.

21 - Between SE and GA or GUhA.

22 - Between joik and GI.

23 - Between stag and gik.

24 - Between GUhA and NAI.

25 - Between GI and NAI.

26 - Between a vocative and, well, anything AFAICT.

27 - Between a number and MAI.

28 - Between mex and VEhO.

Bear in mind that free is always allowed after free, because it's
always in the grammar as free* or free+.

I must say, xorxes, you caught almost everything. Truly your
PEG reading skills have increased rapidly.

If someone wants to tell me exactly which cases should now be
allowed, or the inverse, speak up. We should probably vote on this,
but that can be part of the general PEG vote.

-Robin

On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 05:17:39AM -0500, Pierre Abbat wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 November 2004 23:00, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
> > >>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no
> > >>ideas are coming to mind.
> > >
> > >XI NAI was proposed for this.
> >
> > Isn't this kind of literal? "Subscript" doesn't mean it's
> > written low; it just means this number/letteral/math-expression
> > somehow labels this particular instance or construct. These are
> > notional subscripts, not typography. If you want to talk about
> > super- and sub-scripts typographically, you should be using BY
> > and LAU and the TEI/FOI boys, etc. I don't see that we need to
> > distinguish different ways of attaching numbers to things.
>
> We should distinguish between the way 92 is attached to 'U' and
> the way 238 is,

That's either a semantic distinction or a typesetting distinction,
it need not be a grammatical one.

> though for the meaning we can say {be fi'o teryratni li}.

Exactly.

-Robin, still not sure how he feels about this.

---

> On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 10:12:33AM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > But free modifiers have additional restrictions, which are harder
> > to remember.
> >
> > I don't know if this list is complete:
> >
> > 1- They can't come between two CMENE
> > 2- They can't come between two NIhO's
> > 3- They can't come between I and BO in {I joikstag BO}
> > 4- They can't come between I and joik-jek in {I joik-jek}
> > 5- They can't come between NAhE and BO in {NAhE BO}
> > 6- They can't come between GOhA and RAhO in {GOhA RAhO}
> > 7- They can't come between NU and NAI in {NU NAI}
>
> WTF does NU+NAI *mean*, by the way?

WTF do connected NU's mean, for that matter. {nu je ka},
{du'u seju ni}, {pu'u najanai za'i}...

> > 8- They can't come between digits/lerfu in a number or lerfu-string
> > 9- They can't come between components of a connective e.g. {NA SE A NAI}
> > 10- They can't come after a full connective in some contexts
> > 11- They can't come between components of a compound tag
> > 12- They can't come after a full tag in some contexts
> > 13- They can't come after COI or DOI
> >
> > Most of these restrictions seem to be related to LALR(1). Even
> > though we probably won't want to use them in any of these places
> > very often, it would be nice (easier to learn) if free modifiers
> > behaved just like indicators as much as possible.
....
> It can't come after SI or SA.

Aren't {coi si co'o}, {coi sa co'o} grammatical?

> 14 - Between tag? and TUhE.

The EBNF seems ok with allowing free there.

> 15 - Anywhere at all in stag, tag, and their descendants (ignoring
> the fact that I've added "/ tense-modal (joik-jek tense-modal)*" to
> stag in my version). To wit, the following contain no instances of "free":
> tag, stag, simple-tense-modal, time, time-offset, space, space-offset,
> space-interval, space-int-props, interval-property

That's what I meant in point 11.

> 16 - After or within an ek, gihek, jek, joik, or interval. IOW, A,
> GIhA, JA, JOI, GAhO, BIhI, and all SE, NA and NAI combianations
> thereof.

Those are my points 9 and 10.

> Exceptions: Fragmentary ek and gihek can be followed by free.
> joik-ek and joik-jek both allow free at the end. That appears to be
> it.

That's why I wrote "in some contexts" in 10.

> 17 - Betweeen NA and KU in NA+KU

Right, I missed that one.

> 18 - Anywhere in a ZOI. Other magic words cases.

That's true of indicators too. Free has all the restrictions
of indicators, plus the ones listed.

> 18 - After or withion vocative, indicators, and indicator. This is probably
> a
> good thing.

Vocatives are covered in point 13. Free _can_ follow and be
followed by an indicator or indicators as far as I understand.

> 19 - After LU.

That's not really true. They can be at the begging of text,
and LU can quote a text. It's just that they don't attach
to LU the way free usually attaches to the preceding word.

> 20 - After LEhU.

They can't?

> 21 - Between SE and GA or GUhA.
>
> 22 - Between joik and GI.
>
> 23 - Between stag and gik.
>
> 24 - Between GUhA and NAI.
>
> 25 - Between GI and NAI.

Those are all covered in point 9.

> 26 - Between a vocative and, well, anything AFAICT.

You mean a vocative word?
>
> 27 - Between a number and MAI.

Point 13.

> 28 - Between mex and VEhO.

It can't?

> Bear in mind that free is always allowed after free, because it's
> always in the grammar as free* or free+.

Yes.

> I must say, xorxes, you caught almost everything. Truly your
> PEG reading skills have increased rapidly.

Actually, I read it off of the EBNF, not the PEG, but they
are very similar for this. The parts of the PEG I have
more trouble with are those not handled by the EBNF.

> If someone wants to tell me exactly which cases should now be
> allowed, or the inverse, speak up. We should probably vote on this,
> but that can be part of the general PEG vote.

I think you should move free with indicators, except for
the two cases where it can't be, namely:

{(number | lerfu-string) MAI} cannot come within number
or lerfu-string, and

{vocative relative-clauses selbri relative-clauses /DOhU/
| vocative relative-clauses CMENE ... # relative-clauses /DOhU/
| vocative sumti /DOhU/} cannot come within "vocative".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

---

> Jorge "Llambías" wrote:
> >Prsumably {ma'o ui zei nai bu}.
> >
> me'o again.

Right.

> Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu?

No, lu/li'u are not magic words, as they don't cancel
the usual grammatical behaviour of any other word.
So that's an unclosed lu-quotation: {lu uinai li'ubu ...}

> For that matter, is {.ui bu}
> different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?

One is the lerfu based on the word {ui} and the other is
the lerfu based on the quoted word {zo ui}, so in
principle they are two different lerfu. There is no
rule saying how the source word relates to the lerfu
obtained from it, so it is not possible to say much
on how they differ.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

Jorge "Llambías" wrote:

> <>--- "Mark E. Shoulson" wrote:
>
>>Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu?
>>
>>
>
>No, lu/li'u are not magic words, as they don't cancel
>the usual grammatical behaviour of any other word.
>So that's an unclosed lu-quotation: {lu uinai li'ubu ...}
>
OK, that makes sense... But now I want to find a way to make multi-word
phrases (especially compound cmavo) into letterals. After all, *uinaibu
is probably as useful as uibu. Is ZOI the only way to go here? Or
something weird like {tei uibu naibu foi}

>>For that matter, is {.ui bu}
>>different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?
>>
>>
>
>One is the lerfu based on the word {ui} and the other is
>the lerfu based on the quoted word {zo ui}, so in
>principle they are two different lerfu. There is no
>rule saying how the source word relates to the lerfu
>obtained from it, so it is not possible to say much
>on how they differ.
>
>
OK, that was my question, actually: whether {zo ui bu}, as a letteral
based on the quoted word, should be considered different from one based
on the non-quoted one. I could see it either way. (In which case, of
course, ZOI won't solve the {*uinaibu} problem, since I'd just get a
letteral based on a (non-Lojban, even!) quotation, not the cmavo .uinai)

~mark

---

> OK, that makes sense... But now I want to find a way to make multi-word
> phrases (especially compound cmavo) into letterals. After all, *uinaibu
> is probably as useful as uibu. Is ZOI the only way to go here? Or
> something weird like {tei uibu naibu foi}

{lo'u uinai le'u bu} will work for that.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

Robin Lee Powell wrote:

>On Wed, Nov 17, 2004 at 11:00:53PM -0500, Mark E. Shoulson wrote:
>
>
>>>lu da zei fa'o li'u
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>In which case we're inside a lu/li'u and the question of whether zei
>>quotes fa'o is a moot point, since we have fa'o quoted by lu/li'u.
>>
>>
>
>*NO*. lu...li'u does *not* remove the grammatical effects of what's
>inside it; the fa'o functions normally.
>
>
But I would think that that would mean, in this case, that fa'o signals
the end of the current input stream, namely the *quoted* input stream,
not the surrounding one. lu/li'u *do* prevent the normal grammatical
functions of quoted text from affecting the surrounding text (e.g.
pro-sumti assignments, etc).

>>I note that allowing {zei} to skip over preceding {ba'e}s (i.e.
>>{da ba'e zei de} means the same thing as {da zei de} except that
>>the joining and new part-of-speech is emphasized) doesn't really
>>lose us anything, since anything that {zei} could make with {ba'e}
>>could almost certainly be made with {basna}.
>>
>>
>
>Even if we couldn't, we can use "zo" on the left to fix this.
>
>
Sorry, I'm not following this. We may not be talking about the same thing.

>>Or could we use {lu .uinai li'u} bu? For that matter, is {.ui bu}
>>different from {zo .ui bu} (assuming LTR processing)?
>>
>>
>
>Well, grammatically it is different, obviously. Semantically, I
>think not.
>
>
Semantically it *might* be, and there's probably a case somewhere where
we'd intuitively say that semantically it is. Well, maybe, anyway.

>>>>* A usage convention for superscript would be *lovely*, but no
>>>>ideas are coming to mind.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>XI NAI was proposed for this.
>>>
>>>
>>Isn't this kind of literal?
>>
>>
>
>I think so, yes. XI NAI, I mean.
>
>
Yes, and subscripting vs superscripting in general.

>>"Subscript" doesn't mean it's written low; it just means this
>>number/letteral/math-expression somehow labels this particular
>>instance or construct. These are notional subscripts, not
>>typography. If you want to talk about super- and sub-scripts
>>typographically, you should be using BY and LAU and the TEI/FOI
>>boys, etc. I don't see that we need to distinguish different ways
>>of attaching numbers to things.
>>
>>
>
>I think I disagree with that, but not seriously. If we're to go
>with your interpretation, XI needs to be largely re-written.
>
>
>
I can try to spell it out in more detail, but I doubt I need to; it's
pretty clear, and I think it does match up with most (not all!) of the
examples given for XI (I fear there are probably some chemical formulae
given, etc.)

~mark

> !! Examples of ba'e Usage
>
> lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei se zei cinmo cu nandu
> ''Explaning the emphasis-emotion is difficult.

That should be {lo zo ba'e zei se zei cinmo}.
Otherwise, ba'e emphasizes {zei}, which then joins
{lo} and {se} into a lujvo. You could also just
say {lo se zo ba'e zei cinmo}, I suppose.

> !! Examples of zei Usage
>
> pe'u roko friti le se .uu zei cinmo
> Please, all of you offer your sympathies.
> Literally, "pity type of feeling".

Is that really meant as {pe'u ro ko do'u}?
Probably {pe'u ro do ko friti} makes more sense.

> !! Examples of xi Usage
>
> li xy. boi xi ci du li xy. boi xi pa su'i xy. boi xi re
> x sub three = x sub one plus x sub two

The {boi}s are elidable here, aren't they?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

__
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 01:29:27PM -0800, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > !! Examples of ba'e Usage
> >
> > lo nu ciksi lo ba'e zei se zei cinmo cu nandu ''Explaning the
> > emphasis-emotion is difficult.
>
> That should be {lo zo ba'e zei se zei cinmo}. Otherwise, ba'e
> emphasizes {zei}, which then joins {lo} and {se} into a lujvo. You
> could also just say {lo se zo ba'e zei cinmo}, I suppose.

I believe this is no longer true. Agreed?

> > !! Examples of zei Usage
> >
> > pe'u roko friti le se .uu zei cinmo
> > Please, all of you offer your sympathies.
> > Literally, "pity type of feeling".
>
> Is that really meant as {pe'u ro ko do'u}?
> Probably {pe'u ro do ko friti} makes more sense.

Done.

> > !! Examples of xi Usage
> >
> > li xy. boi xi ci du li xy. boi xi pa su'i xy. boi xi re
> > x sub three = x sub one plus x sub two
>
> The {boi}s are elidable here, aren't they?

Yup.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/