Wiki page BPFK Section: Nonce Connectives changed
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