.i tezu'ebo rivbi va'o lo nu do mo'u citka jebo cu tolxagji je cu zbasu lo zabna zdani je cu xabju ri
ju'ei loi cagda'u be do ferti se panzi ju'ei loi rijno joi loi solji vu'o po do zei'a sormei ju'ei loi ro se ponse be do zei'asai sormei kei
lo nu lo menli be do co'a se'ijgi ju'ei do tolmo'i tu'a la .iauex. ku noi cevni do je noi vimcu do la .misr. ku no'u le tutra pe lo ka bapse'u
One problem that crops up now and then concerns how to include more than one bridi within a NU clause. An example is my translation of Deuteronomy 8:12~14, which I have rendered:.i tezu'ebo rivbi va'o lo nu do mo'u citka jebo cu tolxagji je cu zbasu lo zabna zdani je cu xabju ri
ju'ei loi cagda'u be do ferti se panzi ju'ei loi rijno joi loi solji vu'o po do zei'a sormei ju'ei loi ro se ponse be do zei'asai sormei kei
lo nu lo menli be do co'a se'ijgi ju'ei do tolmo'i tu'a la .iauex. ku noi cevni do je noi vimcu do la .misr. ku no'u le tutra pe lo ka bapse'u(note, uses simplified connectives, the experimental tag {zei'a} which is basically {fi'o te zenba}: {zei'a sormei} means "increasingly many" / "to increase in number", and {ju'ei}, which shall be discussed. Yes, I'm pretty terrible with abusing experimental constructs.)There are several solutions:official-Lojban solution #1: use {ju'e ... gi ...}. Requires forethought, and only takes two bridi. Chaining them to allow more is impractical.official-Lojban solution #2: close each NU clause then join it to a new abstractor sumti. e.g. {lo nu broda kei jo'u lo nu brode}. Pretty wordy.
experimental-grammar solution #1: {ju'ei}; essentially acts like a tight-scope {.i} that doesn't close sub-clauses. {lo nu broda ju'ei brode}. Has the advantage of not requiring forethought, but has the disadvantage of not automatically closing any bridi tails; if one of your abstraction-bridi happens to contain a lot of nested NU or POI, they must be closed manually.experimental-grammar solution #2: Allow {tu'e...tu'u} to act as a single bridi in NU clauses: {lo nu tu'e broda .i brode tu'u}. Does require forethought, but gives a new "level zero" for {.i} to automatically reset to until closed by {tu'u}.
And bonus official-Lojban solution #3, with an experimental shorthand that doesn't require new grammar: {tu'a la'e lu broda .i brode li'u}, with {tu'ai} (selma'o LU) being shorthand for {tu'a la'e lu}. Useful, but may be semantically vague, given lack of LO NU qualification, and {tu'a} possibly implying missing information.Bonus problem: A related problem is how to make several sentences share a sumtcita-term. e.g: *{ca lo nu mi stuvi'e le sralygu'e kei tu'e lo zabna cu fasnu .i lo mabla cu fasnu tu'u}. {ju'e...gi} also works here, but retains the chaining problem, while I don't know if any of the other listed solutions work.
In general I think it's a bad idea to change {.i} so that it doesn't always start a new sentence. The major problems are that it deals a heavy blow to the whole concept of
elidible terminators, if you can't "just start a new sentence" to get out of a deeply nested pit of abstractions; and it means it's no longer possible to quickly scan a text for {.i} to separate the sentences -- you need to parse the entire text to find the sentence boundaries. So I would definitely favor a solution for the first problem that doesn't change the grammar so drastically. (Not to say I'm against new grammar in general, of course! But I find severe disadvantages with this particular proposal.)
In general I think it's a bad idea to change {.i} so that it doesn't always start a new sentence. The major problems are that it deals a heavy blow to the whole concept of elidible terminators, if you can't "just start a new sentence" to get out of a deeply nested pit of abstractions; and it means it's no longer possible to quickly scan a text for {.i} to separate the sentences -- you need to parse the entire text to find the sentence boundaries.
3. sentences connected with forethought connective:{nu ju'e gi broda gi brode gi brodi gi brodo gi brodu}(CU [nu {CU <(¹ju'e gi¹) broda (¹[gi brode] [gi brodi] [gi brodo] [gi brodu]¹) GIhI> VAU} KEI] VAU)(Forethought connectives of la zantufa-0.2 can connect more than three "statements (not only sentences)", and {gi'i} is used as the elidible terminator GIhI, not as GIhA. Seefor more info.)
On 07/15/2015 09:51 AM, la durka wrote:
We can't really just scan the text for {.i} as it may be quoted, specifically by {lu...li'u}.and it means it's no longer possible to quickly scan a text for {.i} to separate the sentences -- you need to parse the entire text to find the sentence boundaries.
True. Most magic words are local, though. Only ZOI and LOhU (and LU) can have a large extent. And magic is comparatively rare, whereas NU/NOI is extremely common and I fear a large amount of text would be broken by changing the semantics of .i after abstractions.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/lojban/NRUIud_OCj8/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
[something]
[something else]
*{tu'e lo mabla cu fasnu .i lo zabna cu fasnu tu'u ca lo nu mi stuvi'e le sralygu'e}
Well, zantufa currently goes further than that.
For the same reason, I prefer the interpretation of "all true or all false" for {go} and "one and only one of them is true" for {gonai} to the interpretation of grouping of binary connectives.