[lojban] Re: ki restriction?

16 views
Skip to first unread message

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 2:45:47 PM1/5/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:52:21PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> > On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > The RefGram says:
> > >
> > > Note: Modals made with ``fi'o''-plus-selbri cannot be made
> > > sticky. This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, restriction.
> > >
> > > All three parsers accept "fi'o ki broda da brode".
> >
> > That's different,
>
> Different from what?

>From what you're discussing.

> > {ki} there is a tag on broda, not on brode.
>
> What does that mean?

A tag always modifies a selbri, either by adding an argument
place or directly as a selbri tcita. In {fi'o ki broda}, {ki} is
a selbri tcita for {broda}, it is not a tag on {brode}.
{fi'o ki broda} is a tag on brode, but the {ki} is internal and
does not make the tag sticky for the brode event.

> > > 2 out of 3 accept "fi'o broda ki da brode", so it doesn't seem
> > > to be a grammatical restriction.
> >
> > That would be {fi'o broda [ku] ki da brode}. Here the term {ki da}
> > is a separate term from the term {fi'o broda ku}.
>
> ki tags the *following* thing, you're saying?

In that sentence, it is acting as a sumti tcita, yes.

> > > I don't get it.
> >
> > This is a proposal for how the grammar of tags could be cleaned up:
>
> No interest; I'm asking about the current state and why that
> restriction exists.

The proposal shows how there is no rational explanation for the
current state. If even you, who are quite capable of reading a formal
grammar, cannot make heads or tails of the current state, can
we expect the ordinary lojbanist to?

mu'o mi'e xorxes


To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to lojban-li...@lojban.org
with the subject unsubscribe, or go to http://www.lojban.org/lsg2/, or if
you're really stuck, send mail to secr...@lojban.org for help.

Jorge Llambías

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 1:52:21 PM1/5/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
>
> The RefGram says:
>
> Note: Modals made with ``fi'o''-plus-selbri cannot be made sticky.
> This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, restriction.
>
> in Chapter 9, Section 14.
>
> What does this mean?

>
> All three parsers accept "fi'o ki broda da brode".

That's different, {ki} there is a tag on broda, not on brode.

> 2 out of 3
> accept "fi'o broda ki da brode", so it doesn't seem to be a
> grammatical restriction.

That would be {fi'o broda [ku] ki da brode}. Here the term {ki da}
is a separate term from the term {fi'o broda ku}.

> I don't get it.

This is a proposal for how the grammar of tags could be cleaned up:

<http://www.lojban.org/tiki/tiki-index.php?page=Internal+grammar+of+tags>

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 1:35:45 PM1/5/06
to loj...@yahoogroups.com

The RefGram says:

Note: Modals made with ``fi'o''-plus-selbri cannot be made sticky.
This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, restriction.

in Chapter 9, Section 14.

What does this mean?

All three parsers accept "fi'o ki broda da brode". 2 out of 3


accept "fi'o broda ki da brode", so it doesn't seem to be a
grammatical restriction.

I don't get it.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Robin Lee Powell

unread,
Jan 5, 2006, 2:09:23 PM1/5/06
to lojba...@lojban.org
On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 03:52:21PM -0300, Jorge Llamb?as wrote:
> On 1/5/06, Robin Lee Powell <rlpo...@digitalkingdom.org> wrote:
> >
> > The RefGram says:
> >
> > Note: Modals made with ``fi'o''-plus-selbri cannot be made
> > sticky. This is an unfortunate, but unavoidable, restriction.
> >
> > in Chapter 9, Section 14.
> >
> > What does this mean?
> >
> > All three parsers accept "fi'o ki broda da brode".
>
> That's different,

Different from what?

> {ki} there is a tag on broda, not on brode.

What does that mean?

> > 2 out of 3 accept "fi'o broda ki da brode", so it doesn't seem
> > to be a grammatical restriction.
>
> That would be {fi'o broda [ku] ki da brode}. Here the term {ki da}
> is a separate term from the term {fi'o broda ku}.

ki tags the *following* thing, you're saying?

> > I don't get it.


>
> This is a proposal for how the grammar of tags could be cleaned up:

No interest; I'm asking about the current state and why that
restriction exists.

-Robin

--
http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/
Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!"
Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages