{jai jai} and {fai}

[Gleki Arxokuna]

I need two {jai}, one for creating fai-jai construction, the other to prevent raising of {ko'a}.

(ko'a {<jai [jai ri'a broda]> <[fai ko'e] VAU>})

I can see that fai refers to the outer {jai} which deals with raising but how to refer to the inner {jai}?

As for more {jai} I guess only the last one deals with the TAG, all the previous {jai} deal with raising.

(ko'a {<jai [jai (jai ri'a broda)]> <[fai ko'e] VAU>})

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I need two {jai}, one for creating fai-jai construction, the other to prevent raising of {ko'a}.

(ko'a {<jai [jai ri'a broda]> <[fai ko'e] VAU>})

You mean _allow_ raising, right? "jai" allows raising an argument from a subordinate bridi up to the main bridi. 

I can see that fai refers to the outer {jai} which deals with raising but how to refer to the inner {jai}?

Presumably "fai xi pa". That's how lojban usually deals with this sort of things.

As for more {jai} I guess only the last one deals with the TAG, all the previous {jai} deal with raising.

(ko'a {<jai [jai (jai ri'a broda)]> <[fai ko'e] VAU>})

You could have more than one "jai TAG" as well "ko'a jai ca jai bau jai ri'a broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

   

[Gleki Arxokuna]

2014-10-25 19:39 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I need two {jai}, one for creating fai-jai construction, the other to prevent raising of {ko'a}.

(ko'a {<jai [jai ri'a broda]> <[fai ko'e] VAU>})

You mean _allow_ raising, right? "jai" allows raising an argument from a subordinate bridi up to the main bridi. 

I can see that fai refers to the outer {jai} which deals with raising but how to refer to the inner {jai}?

Presumably "fai xi pa". That's how lojban usually deals with this sort of things.

I wish I could wrap the inner {jai} with something like {ke}.

 

As for more {jai} I guess only the last one deals with the TAG, all the previous {jai} deal with raising.

(ko'a {<jai [jai (jai ri'a broda)]> <[fai ko'e] VAU>})

You could have more than one "jai TAG" as well "ko'a jai ca jai bau jai ri'a broda".

mu'o mi'e xorxes

   

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban+un...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to loj...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

2014-10-25 19:39 GMT+04:00 Jorge Llambías <jjlla...@gmail.com>:

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

I need two {jai}, one for creating fai-jai construction, the other to prevent raising of {ko'a}.

(ko'a {<jai [jai ri'a broda]> <[fai ko'e] VAU>})

You mean _allow_ raising, right? "jai" allows raising an argument from a subordinate bridi up to the main bridi. 

I can see that fai refers to the outer {jai} which deals with raising but how to refer to the inner {jai}?

Presumably "fai xi pa". That's how lojban usually deals with this sort of things.

I wish I could wrap the inner {jai} with something like {ke}.

You can: "jai ke jai ri'a broda [ke'e]" is grammatical, although unnecessary in this simple case.

[Gleki Arxokuna]

Well, I meant for moving {fai} inwards. {ke} doesnt work as {faixipa}.

 ({jai <ke [jai ri'a broda] KE'E>} {<fai do> VAU})

Neither {be} is able to move it inwards:

({<jai [jai ri'a broda]> <be [fai do] BE'O>} VAU)

As for {faixipa} why do we start counting with {pa} from the inside, not from the outside}?

And the current parsers currently don't provide inner links of what links what, they dont provide enough formalization. Compare this with FA where jbofi'e clearly understands which sumti fills which place of which bridi within the tree.

mu'o mi'e xorxes

[Jorge Llambías]

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I meant for moving {fai} inwards. {ke} doesnt work as {faixipa}.

 ({jai <ke [jai ri'a broda] KE'E>} {<fai do> VAU})

Neither {be} is able to move it inwards:

({<jai [jai ri'a broda]> <be [fai do] BE'O>} VAU)

You need both ke and be:

jai ke jai ri'a broda be fai do ke'e fai mi 

As for {faixipa} why do we start counting with {pa} from the inside, not from the outside}?

I would start with "no" from the outside.

 

And the current parsers currently don't provide inner links of what links what, they dont provide enough formalization. Compare this with FA where jbofi'e clearly understands which sumti fills which place of which bridi within the tree.

That's what Martin is working on. It's hard.