5.1) mi viska do fi'o kanla [fe'u] le zunle
6.1) mi viska do sepi'o le zunle kanla
7.1) le spati cu banro ri'a le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati
7.5) do djacu dunda fi le spati seri'a le nu ri banro
7.6) le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati cu rinka le nu le spati cu banro
7.7) le spati cu banro .iri'abo do djacu dunda fi le spatiAll sentences under this interpretation have same predicate structure:
M1. Modals add additional places to predicate, creating new predicate related to basic, but with different place-structure:
M2. Modals introduce additional predicates, linked to the main one... somehow.
(By the way, am I right in understanding what only those modals which have short BAI form could be used in connectives?)
There could be third alternative, or at least, additional factor to consider that a recent discussion on #lojban touched. If multiple modals are present in the same statement, then the order of their appearance could matter, as they modify the main predicate one-by-one, creating scopes:
(By the way, am I right in understanding what only those modals which have short BAI form could be used in connectives?)
On 30 Jan 2015 03:39, "Stela Selckiku" <selc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> .au pilno lo jbobau
> (I'd like using Lojban.)
Stela, that looks a bit glico calquey to me. I think ".au ca'a jbobau" would be better...
(I mention this because of your interest in sejbobauing in a way dictated by the inherent character of Lojban rather than by the speaker's L1.)
--And.
--
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.
Wow, thank you!
But what worries me is what it is unclear which places in {fi'o}/BAI predicate correspond to the places of main predicate. It somehow parallels the vagueness of tanru.
All gismu on which connectives in http://lojban.github.io/cll/9/7/ are based have two {nu} places, and when used as connectives, it seems what connected predicates fill these places in their proper order. When {fi'o}/BAI predicate have {du'u}/{nu} place and used as tag, it would be assumed what that place will be filled with the abstraction of the main predicate; when tag predicate have an agentive place, it is most probable what that place would be filled with the agent of the main predicate — but all these are guesses and are not described in grammar.
And in examples like {mi viska do fi'o kanla le zunle}, where tag predicate have no abstraction places, it is unclear how it is connected to the main predicate — because taken literally, claim here can be "I see you. (somehow related to is, probably by common context and situation, is the fact what) I have an eye" (or even "there is an eye", as nothing indicate who or what {lo se kanla} is!).
By the way, why modals were called modals? I know what this is carried over from Loglan, and I read Loglan1, but found no explaination beyond what the word modal is used not in ordinary logical sense.
пятница, 30 января 2015 г., 4:36:43 UTC+3 пользователь xorxes написал:On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 8:20 PM, Dmitry Kourmyshov <dmitry.k...@gmail.com> wrote:
M1. Modals add additional places to predicate, creating new predicate related to basic, but with different place-structure:M2. Modals introduce additional predicates, linked to the main one... somehow.Both are essentially correct.(1) A viska B se pi'o C(2) A viska B .i jo'u A pilno C lo nu A viska BBoth (1) and (2) express basically the same relationship between three things, A, B and C, we could call it "broda": "A broda B C".(2) is just a more expanded version than (1) in explaining what "broda" means, one that doesn't use "pi'o".(By the way, am I right in understanding what only those modals which have short BAI form could be used in connectives?)All tags (I don't call them "modals" because most of them have nothing to do with modality) can be used as connectives, not just BAIs, although the meaning for some of them is unclear (e.g. ".i bau bo")There could be third alternative, or at least, additional factor to consider that a recent discussion on #lojban touched. If multiple modals are present in the same statement, then the order of their appearance could matter, as they modify the main predicate one-by-one, creating scopes:Of course, but even under M1, when scope matters you still have to take it into consideration when explaining what relationship the new extended predicate "broda" expresses.It should be pointed out that there is no automatic one-rule-fits-all method of expanding tags, at least until we figure out what the "true" underlying predicate for each tag should be,mu'o mi'e xorxes
Wow, thank you!
But what worries me is what it is unclear which places in {fi'o}/BAI predicate correspond to the places of main predicate. It somehow parallels the vagueness of tanru.
7.1) le spati cu banro ri'a le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati
7.5) do djacu dunda fi le spati seri'a le nu ri banro
7.6) le nu do djacu dunda fi le spati cu rinka le nu le spati cu banro
7.7) le spati cu banro .iri'abo do djacu dunda fi le spatiAll sentences under this interpretation have same predicate structure: