random things

[djandus]

This is a lot of random things, some of which could probably be answered by better cll reading, but I've already been on there for the past {so'i} hours, so... yeah.

So, I was thinking about {PA ka'o PA}, and how it's automatically in the rectangular imaginary space (a + bi), and I was wondering what it would take to swap to polar (a e^ib). This would obviously be {PA te'o te'a ka'o PA}, which in some cases could be obnoxious to use. I then became curious about if I could assign a word for it, etc. etc. I mean, could I assign the word {te'a'o} to be exp()? (I'm mainly asking about the "Would that word violate any morphology rules?" part.)

Then going to declaration of functions, I remembered a question I had a while back. Can you use pro-valsi assignment cmavo to set words you want to define? As in, there always comes a time when a speaker wants to make up a word for something rather than use {broda} -- so, he might define a less-temporary brivla that he expects to use much later in a similar context. He could, of course, use {smuni}, but that would imply the brivla is official -- it makes more sense to me to be able to use {cei} to define it.

One last thing that came up while I was browsing the cll regards modal sentence connection. (http://dag.github.com/cll/9/7/) The cll doesn't explicitly provide examples of this, but I expect from the text that you can use modal connection to imply any abstraction, as with

{mi djuno do .idu'ibo mi djuno lo mi xance} or

{mi djuno du'igi do gi lo mi xance} for

"I know you like the back of my hand"

Assuming {mi drani}, does it then make sense to use relativised pro-sumti inside modally connected bridi, like so:

{mi djuno do .i fi'o se banli bo do pendo ce'u} for

"My knowing you has greatness in property being-befriended-by-you"

which is a really obscure example, I know, but bear with me here. Does that construction make sense?

The end of this is I'd love to have a translation for Bilbo's great line, "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." I've gotten started with the following:

{mi na djuno pi mu do .idu'ibo??? .i mi nelci me'i pi mu do ???}

Not only am I stuck with how to relate the clauses, but I'm also stuck with how to translate "should"...

mu'o mi'e djandus

[Martin Bays]

* Thursday, 2011-10-20 at 02:40 -0700 - djandus <jan...@gmail.com>:

> [snip things I can't answer]

>
> The end of this is I'd love to have a translation for Bilbo's great line, "I
> don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than
> half of you half as well as you deserve." I've gotten started with the
> following:
> {mi na djuno pi mu do .idu'ibo??? .i mi nelci me'i pi mu do ???}
> Not only am I stuck with how to relate the clauses, but I'm also stuck with
> how to translate "should"...

How about
{ge ro da poi me su'o pi mu do zo'u ni mi ca'a nelci da kei fa li su'e pi mu
pi'i mo'e lo pa ni ca'a lo se nelci be mi mi nelci da gi ro da poi me me'i pi
mu do zo'u ni mi ca'a nelci da kei fa li su'e pi mu pi'i mo'e lo pa ni ca'a lo
drani nu cnemu da ku mi nelci da}
?

If we wanted to make it less repetitious at the expense of deviating further
from the form of the english, we could put in an outer prenex {bu'a cei se
nelci be mi}, and use {ni bu'a da} in place of {ni mi nelci da}.

Note that we're both relying on a definition of the quantifier {pi mu} which
Pierre has just contradicted in another thread...

I'm also not sure how widely accepted is this meaning for {ca'a} as
a sumtcita.

Martin

[Michael Turniansky]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 5:40 AM, djandus <jan...@gmail.com> wrote:

This is a lot of random things, some of which could probably be answered by better cll reading, but I've already been on there for the past {so'i} hours, so... yeah.

So, I was thinking about {PA ka'o PA}, and how it's automatically in the rectangular imaginary space (a + bi), and I was wondering what it would take to swap to polar (a e^ib). This would obviously be {PA te'o te'a ka'o PA}, which in some cases could be obnoxious to use. I then became curious about if I could assign a word for it, etc. etc. I mean, could I assign the word {te'a'o} to be exp()? (I'm mainly asking about the "Would that word violate any morphology rules?" part.)

Then going to declaration of functions, I remembered a question I had a while back. Can you use pro-valsi assignment cmavo to set words you want to define? As in, there always comes a time when a speaker wants to make up a word for something rather than use {broda} -- so, he might define a less-temporary brivla that he expects to use much later in a similar context. He could, of course, use {smuni}, but that would imply the brivla is official -- it makes more sense to me to be able to use {cei} to define it.

One last thing that came up while I was browsing the cll regards modal sentence connection. (http://dag.github.com/cll/9/7/) The cll doesn't explicitly provide examples of this, but I expect from the text that you can use modal connection to imply any abstraction, as with

{mi djuno do .idu'ibo mi djuno lo mi xance} or

{mi djuno du'igi do gi lo mi xance} for

"I know you like the back of my hand"

Assuming {mi drani}, does it then make sense to use relativised pro-sumti inside modally connected bridi, like so:

{mi djuno do .i fi'o se banli bo do pendo ce'u} for

"My knowing you has greatness in property being-befriended-by-you"

which is a really obscure example, I know, but bear with me here. Does that construction make sense?

 

 

  No.  As it says in Chapter 9, the end of section 8:

Note: Due to restrictions on the Lojban parsing algorithm, it is not possible to form modal connectives using the ``fi'o''-plus-selbri form of modal. Only the predefined modals of selma'o BAI can be compounded as shown in Sections 7 and 8.

 

The end of this is I'd love to have a translation for Bilbo's great line, "I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve." I've gotten started with the following:

{mi na djuno pi mu do .idu'ibo??? .i mi nelci me'i pi mu do ???}

Not only am I stuck with how to relate the clauses, but I'm also stuck with how to translate "should"...

 

Try this:

 

mi se slabu do fo su'e pi mu lo ni mi djica no'a .ije mi nelci me'i pi mu do se kai  pi mu lo ni se jerna do

       --gejyspa

 

[Pierre Abbat]

On Tuesday 25 October 2011 07:44:23 Michael Turniansky wrote:
> > Assuming {mi drani}, does it then make sense to use relativised pro-sumti
> > inside modally connected bridi, like so:
> > {mi djuno do .i fi'o se banli bo do pendo ce'u} for
> > "My knowing you has greatness in property being-befriended-by-you"
> > which is a really obscure example, I know, but bear with me here. Does
> > that construction make sense?
>
> No. As it says in Chapter 9, the end of section 8:
> > Note: Due to restrictions on the Lojban parsing algorithm, it is not
> > possible to form modal connectives using the ``fi'o''-plus-selbri form of
> > modal. Only the predefined modals of selma'o BAI can be compounded as
> > shown in Sections

> > 7<http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter9.html#s7>a
> >nd 8
> > <http://www.lojban.org/publications/reference_grammar/chapter9.html#s8>.

Camxes accepts it, so it's a limitation of LALR.

Pierre

--
gau do li'i co'e kei do