{gi} still better than {vau} for connectives

5 views
Skip to first unread message

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Jan 13, 2014, 1:59:20 AM1/13/14
to lojban...@googlegroups.com
{ko'a broda gibabo broda} is 1.5 syllables shorter than {ko'a broda vaujebabo broda}.
So *{ko'a broda vaubabo broda} wouldn't be possible?
{BAIbo} works much like JA/JOI in some cases ({.i JA} and {.i BAI bo}) so it would be intuitive.

And what about {mi babo do klama} - "I and then you go."?

pei mi va'o la'e di'u bebna

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Jan 15, 2014, 3:30:53 AM1/15/14
to lojban...@googlegroups.com
{mi du i babo mi du i babo mi du}
Standard Lojban:

([mi du] [i ba bo {mi du} {i ba bo <mi du>}])

ilmentufa:

([{mi CU} {du VAU}] [i ba bo {mi CU} {du VAU}] [i ba bo {mi CU} {du VAU}])

And the overall table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sa2cKreykt_tqCPF30l-lNzJ7URMcsCCByk3vsLyOeA/edit?usp=sharing

As you can see ilmentufa disagrees with standard camxes in one cell. I suggest that every column follow the pattern "e r r r".

Gleki Arxokuna

unread,
Jan 15, 2014, 3:35:05 AM1/15/14
to lojban...@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jan 15, 2014 at 12:30 PM, Gleki Arxokuna <gleki.is...@gmail.com> wrote:
{mi du i babo mi du i babo mi du}
Standard Lojban:

([mi du] [i ba bo {mi du} {i ba bo <mi du>}])

ilmentufa:

([{mi CU} {du VAU}] [i ba bo {mi CU} {du VAU}] [i ba bo {mi CU} {du VAU}])

And the overall table:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sa2cKreykt_tqCPF30l-lNzJ7URMcsCCByk3vsLyOeA/edit?usp=sharing

As you can see ilmentufa disagrees with standard camxes in one cell.
sorry, ignore di'u.

Ilmen

unread,
Jan 15, 2014, 6:45:49 PM1/15/14
to lojban...@googlegroups.com
Okay, I've tested various backups of the grammar to find out when this apparent parse change appeared, and it turned out it appeared along with the implementation of priting of elided terminators.
But after some further testings, I came to the conclusion that there is actually no parse divergence at all, it is only an apparent divergence due to printing of elided terminators.

To have a fair comparison, you have to write down all the elided CU:

# { mi cu du i babo mi cu du i babo mi cu du i babo mi cu du }

STD: ([{mi cu} du] [i ba bo {mi cu} du] [i ba bo {mi cu} du] [i ba bo {mi cu} du])
EXP: ([{mi cu} {du VAU}] [i ba bo {mi cu} {du VAU}] [i ba bo {mi cu} {du VAU}] [i ba bo {mi cu} {du VAU}])

As you can see, now the i-clauses are all on the same floor in both standard and experimental Camxes. :)

mi'e la .ilmen. mu'o
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "lojban zasni" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lojban-zasni...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban-zasni.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages