Proposal 8

[Randall Holmes]

I would also like to call for an up-down vote on Proposal 8 (the elimination of unmarked vocatives).

The effect is to require that one mark a vocative with HOI

I can tell you as the active grammar writer that unmarked vocatives are a disaster.  They are freemods, so they can appear *anywhere*; thus there

is serious danger of name words being unintentionally interpreted as

vocatives.

It certainly seems that reading an initial segment of an utterance as a freemod

should be "high priority" (in LIP it is done in preparsing).  But in a phonetic

parser without restrictions on what syllables appear in names, any pause-free consonant final utterance would be read as a single name functioning as an unmarked vocative.

Part of the background of this proposal is that I want to lift strange restrictions on syllables appearing in names, but there are excellent reasons to mark all vocatives which have nothing to do with this.

Final segments of serial names are often accidentally read as unmarked vocatives when I enable them.

My feeling on this one is that it should be an easy positive decision...of course, if I am wrong there will be a clamor of discussion and we will discover otherwise.

--
Sincerely, Randall Holmes

Any opinions expressed above are not the
official opinions of any person or institution.

[Randall Holmes]

I am a silly person sometimes.  Proposal 9 is the proposal eliminating unmarked vocatives,

and that is what we are discussing.  I believe I can correctly construe Emerson's vote as cast for proposal 9 :-)

On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Emerson Mitchell <emer...@aol.com> wrote:

I am convinced, put my vote down FOR proposal 8.

Emerson

Some things Man was never meant to know. For everything else, there’s Google.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Keugru" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to keugru+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Randall Holmes]

Of course...obviously my attention to the number was impaired :-)

[John Cowan]

Randall Holmes scripsit:

> My feeling on this one is that it should be an easy positive decision...of
> course, if I am wrong there will be a clamor of discussion and we will
> discover otherwise.

I'm very much in favor of eliminating unmarked names, with the
exception of allowing a name as an utterance, with undefined semantics.
This would allow a name to be quoted with LI/LU semantics if we
tighten those up, as I think we should.

--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan co...@ccil.org
Lope de Vega: "It wonders me I can speak at all. Some caitiff rogue
did rudely yerk me on the knob, wherefrom my wits yet wander."
An Englishman: "Ay, belike a filchman to the nab'll leave you
crank for a spell." --Harry Turtledove, Ruled Britannia

[Randall Holmes]

I have already eliminated the other appearance of unmarked names, as arguments,

in my provisional grammar.  Sutori name word components of serial names are unmarked,

but I think they can be controlled.  Once unmarked names cannot be arguments, it is

the case as John notes that li Djan lu is no longer well-formed, as Djan is then no longer

an element of class utterance.

There is actually no reason for unmarked names to be utterances (and some hazard

to their being such, though at lowest priority they wouldn't do harm).  Li Djan lu would

not be a well-formed quotation, but Liu Djan has the same meaning.

I have made LI...LU precisely LI utterance0 LU in my grammar (utterance0 differs

from utterance only in that utterance is required to end at the end of the string being parsed).

I'm planning to submit a proposal to eliminate unmarked names as arguments.

Can I construe you, John, as casting a formal vote for proposal 9?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Keugru" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to keugru+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Randall Holmes]

re John's suggestion that a name could serve as an utterance by itself (with unspecified semantics)

there are three possible meanings, each covered by a marker!

reference to John:  la Djan

addressing John:  hoi Djan

reference to "John":  liu Djan

is there some other use?  And if one specifically wants to quote "John" with li...lu

one could also allow this by fiat, though I think liu Djan serves the same purpose.

[John Cowan]

Randall Holmes scripsit:

> Li Djan lu would not be a well-formed quotation, but Liu Djan has the
> same meaning.

That's true, but Liu Djan Pol Djonz quotes only Djan.

> I'm planning to submit a proposal to eliminate unmarked names as arguments.

Since they were never actually available in LIP (being masked by names
as vocatives), I see no point in formally voting on them. The justification
for removing bare names works in either case.

> Can I construe you, John, as casting a formal vote for proposal 9?

Yes.

--
"Well, I'm back." --Sam John Cowan <co...@ccil.org>

[John Cowan]

Randall Holmes scripsit:

> reference to "John": liu Djan
>
> is there some other use? And if one specifically wants to quote "John"
> with li...lu one could also allow this by fiat, though I think liu
> Djan serves the same purpose.

Allowing "li Djan Pol Djonz lu" by fiat is better than requiring "lie
fu Djan Pol Djonz fu", which would be the only remaining alternative.
So how about changing the rule to "LI utterance0 LU | LI name LU"?

--
John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Fundamental thinking is ha-ard. Let's go ideology-shopping.
--Philosopher Barbie

[Randall Holmes]

The point about quotation of serial names is a good one.  It could be addressed more conservatively by

allowing li name lu as well as li utterance0 lu as an argument form, also adding LI as a name marker.  That I could just install in my grammar.  Are there any other grammar classes that one might like to quote which are not single words and not

top-level utterances?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Keugru" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to keugru+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[John Cowan]

Randall Holmes scripsit:

> Are there any other grammar classes that one might like to quote which
> are not single words and not top-level utterances?

I can't think of any.

--
Barry thirteen gules and argent on a canton azure John Cowan
fifty mullets of five points of the second, co...@ccil.org
six, five, six, five, six, five, six, five, and six.
--blazoning the U.S. flag http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

[Randall Holmes]

I just suggested that!  Two great minds with a single thought :-)

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Keugru" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to keugru+un...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[selpa'i]

la Djan, ga cutse le nedfui:

> Randall Holmes scripsit:
>
>> reference to "John": liu Djan
>>
>> is there some other use? And if one specifically wants to quote "John"
>> with li...lu one could also allow this by fiat, though I think liu
>> Djan serves the same purpose.
>
> Allowing "li Djan Pol Djonz lu" by fiat is better than requiring "lie
> fu Djan Pol Djonz fu", which would be the only remaining alternative.
> So how about changing the rule to "LI utterance0 LU | LI name LU"?

Seconded.

I'm am fully in favor of proposal 9, and I support LI...LU qouting bare
names.

--hue la Selpahi