[lojban] ka'enai (was: Re: A question on the new baseline policy)
Invent Yourself
> >> Under the new baseline policy, would it be possible to have such common
> >> "errors" as ka'enai incorporated into the official language?
>
> >The way I read it is that it's *highly* unlikely that any grammar
> >changes will occur. Especially for something as questionable as
> >CAhA+NAI, where it's not clear what it even should mean.
Are you suggesting that to'eka'e is different from na'eka'e?
> >In fact,
> >you'd do well to avoid using PU+NAI/FAhA+NAI as well, lest you fall
> >into the trap of thinking of it as something other than contradictory
> >negation.
>
> The problem with this logic is that for things that are not dictated, the
> motto is always the famous LUD - Let Usage Decide. Well, U has D'd that even
> though there is a prescription here, ka'enai is fine. That is to say, it
> pops up all sorts of places, and everyone understands it (as equivalent to
> na ka'e). So if the language is reentering a period of change, ka'enai
> should be considered at least.
First and last sentences of D5 of http://www.lojban.org/llg/baseline.html
indicates that ka'enai can be considered by the BF.
--
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Nick Nicholas
> On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, And Rosta wrote:
>
>> Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
>> many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect.
>> Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
>> to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
>> that command intrinsic respect.
> A very interesting and worthy point. If the BF's decisions will be
> ignored
> by significant fractions of users, why should it bother making them?
> This
> is a case of the leaders seeing where the people are going, running
> out in
> front of them, and then claiming to lead them.
Zinger upon zinger; in all seriousness, this community is privileged to
have both of you in it.
I think ka'enai will be a litmus for Lojban; as someone on the wiki
said (was it Robin.CA?), ka'enai will be the Lojban "ain't". We have
two clashing imperatives: analogy, which is how natural languages work,
and unambiguity, which is how engelangs work. They conflict.
Assuming that Jordan and John are right, and that ka'enai is hopelessly
vague:
I think the grammar needs to be swayed by fundamentalist and formalist
criteria --- no change unless broken (where 'broken' does not just mean
'inconvenient', but 'contradictory' or 'ambiguous'). Real human beings
don't talk like robots, you'll say, they'll want to make the analogy.
Accepted. And real human beings will not abide by 100% of the current
Lojban grammar, either. The grammar *was* designed for robots, and
represents a standard which people will not necessarily speak
rigorously. i frankly don't see the point in the machine grammar
continuously morphing to keep track with the natural evolution of the
language (to the extent it happens): an unambiguous syntax is a selling
point in its own right, and spoken Lojban will always butt against it.
So let's leave the grammar alone. The grammar is stupid in many, many
ways, whether this is an instance or not; but I don't regard us as
having a mandate to make it more convenient, learnable, or sensible ---
just to prevent any ambiguity. I will rejoice if people 'subvert the
baseline' on this one; but throwing this kind of thing open for
prescription now is just too risky, and I don't see the point. Let
Lojban have its "ain't": if you forestall one instance of people
generalising away from the syntax, you won't be able to forestall them
all.
And is quite right to characterise me as a weathervane. Whether I'm
developing a coherent ideology yet, I can't really tell. Maybe I just
won't.
The business of the leaders is to run in the same general direction as
everyone else; the point being, I suppose, that the leaders diagnose
what that direction is, because the population running often can't
tell. That's why I preferred your formulation of 'Standard Lojban'. But
there are a couple of other imperatives the BPFK needs to follow first
--- fundamentalism and formalism-lite: a commitment to unambiguousness,
at least, even if not outright formalisation. (The 'aims of the
language' that the board statement speaks of.) Sometimes, people
haven't been running in that direction at all. In this kind of
situation, though, when the formalism-lite imperative is brought up,
people usually accept it and change their usage (e.g. ce'u). I'm not
saying naturalism-lite doesn't achieve this either (past usage all
other things being equal --- e.g. vo'a).
---
DR NICK NICHOLAS. ni...@unimelb.edu.au
FRENCH & ITALIAN, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, AUSTRALIA.
In Athens, news spreads fast: they know everything as soon as it
happens,
sometimes before it happens, and often without it happening at all.
--- Jean Psichari, _My Voyage_. http://www.opoudjis.net
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Invent Yourself
> Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
> many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect.
> Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
> to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
> that command intrinsic respect.
A very interesting and worthy point. If the BF's decisions will be ignored
by significant fractions of users, why should it bother making them? This
is a case of the leaders seeing where the people are going, running out in
front of them, and then claiming to lead them.
Anyway, I await someone to describe the difference between na'eka'e and
to'eka'e.
Robert LeChevalier
>Jordan:
> > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:51:52PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Jordan to Craig:
> > > > Why aren't you complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?
> > > He well could be. In a former discussion about how to translate
> > > English "still" and "already", {ba'o nai} emerged as the best
> > > candidate for rendering "still" (as I recall). I guess {na'e
> > > ba'o} would do the job too, but it is certainly not true that
> > > nobody has hitherto supposed ZAhO+NAI useful
> >
> > I meant to say ze'u nai. There's a *bunch* of tenses you can't put
> > nai on. People presenting the 'case' for ka'e+nai generally claim
> > that it improves "consistency", when it does the opposite
>
>You're right in one sense, but I think the underlying idea is that
>if there were a grammar change it would be to give NAI the distribution
>of UI, so that its distribution would be overall less arbitrary and
>more learnable.
I think that NAI treated as a UI would cause more (semantics) problems than
you can imagine (and we did consider it, albeit VERY briefly). You are the
one who wants better semantics definition. Grammatically it would be a
major change because NAI is in so many rules.
pa re nai ci?
(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
It would mean that the logical connectives are handled by hodgepodge: je
and naje would be lexer tokens, but najenai would grammatically be naje
with an absorbed nai as part of the je hence implying "na (je nai)" which
is not correct.
You would fix something by breaking other things, and raise far more
questions that you would answer.
> > > The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
> > > rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
> > > internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
> > > the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
> > > has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
> > > and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
> > > is a candidate for being officially formalized
> >
> > This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
> > is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
> > to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
> > ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
> > allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI
>
>Do you understand that I am trying to explain to how how the opposing
>side sees things? The actual debate should go to the BF. I was just
>trying to point out to you that everybody else isn't as stupid as
>you think they are.
Just the "opposing side" that sees things that way %^)
> > I am confident that the more ka'enai users who give a bit of effort
> > to understand why it is not allowed, the more of them that will
> > abandon ka'e+nai of their own accord. I've not seen a single
> > argument for CAhA+NAI that didn't consist of "It's more consistent",
> > which is completely false, so I believe people can be convinced on
> > this issue
>
>Is "It's more consistent that NAI be in UI rather than be able to
>cooccur with an apparently arbitrary and deductively unpredictable
>subset of selmaho" completely false?
Yes.
nai is far less arbitrary and difficult to learn than the elidability
terminators, or the places where free modifiers are and are not
allowed. There are some things is the language that are restricted by the
need to have LALR1. Resorting to UI is a copout since UI has no
grammatical interaction OTHER THAN with the prior word (and the prior word
determines its scope which I don't think would be true with nai).
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Theodore Reed
--=.UPCkgv+1uyl1Mf
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On Sun, 1 Dec 2002 20:50:37 -0600
Jordan DeLong <frac...@allusion.net> wrote:
> "Let usage decide" refers to a time (which we are not anywhere near)
> in the distant future when people can fluently speak lojban. It
> does not refer to mistakes people make when learning. Usage is not
> sufficient to decide anything right now, and of the usage which
> exists there's barely any ka'enai---there's only a few people who
> would rather change it to be correct than to just take a look at
> the BNF and learn what the grammar for tenses really is (CAhA is
> not just like PU, neither is ZAhO, etc).
Amen! One of the things I fear most about the future of Lojban is the
potential for "standard errors". I think even Lojbab has said that the
biggest hurdle we initial speakers of the language face is that of
bootstrapping. Letting the usage of non-fluent people decide would be,
IMO, a very bad idea.
.iesai le pu'i manri bo selsrera cu cmima le'i traji selterpa be mi bei
ca le lojbo balvi .i ti'e la lojbab pu cusku le du'u le nu cfarygau cu
traji ternabmi romi poi krasi pilno le bangu .i le nu curmi le za'i le
nunpilno pe le nalcertu prenu cu jai jdice keikei xlali
Heh, hope I didn't hose up that translation too badly.
--
Theodore Reed (rizen/bancus) -==- http://www.surreality.us/
~OpenPGP Signed/Encrypted Mail Preferred; Finger me for my public key!~
"We have committed a greater crime, and for this crime there is no name.
What punishment awaits us if it be discovered we know not, for no such
crime has come in the memory of men and there are no laws to provide for
it." -- Equality 7-2521, Ayn Rand's Anthem
--=.UPCkgv+1uyl1Mf
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
[Attachment content not displayed.]
Pierre Abbat
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:42:28PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> > >pa re nai ci?
> > >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
> >
> >
> > A: pa re xu ci
> > B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci
>
> I dunno what ja'ai is and don't feel like looking it up. This seems
> highly contrived though. Anyway, there's certainly tons of weird
> things which would need to be explained (ku nai, pi'e nai, la/le/etc nai,
> .inai, mi nai, la'e nai di'u, jai nai, etc etc).
This calls for {na'i}, not {nai}.
phma
Robert LeChevalier
>la lojbab cusku di'e
> >I think that NAI treated as a UI would cause more (semantics) problems than
> >you can imagine (and we did consider it, albeit VERY briefly). You are the
> >one who wants better semantics definition. Grammatically it would be a
> >major change because NAI is in so many rules.
>
>to learn. For each rule, you have to learn whether or not it allows
>NAI. Moving NAI to UI may be a major change but it would be one that
>simplifies the grammar, and which is also fully backward compatible,
>so the best kind of change.
>
> >pa re nai ci?
> >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
>
>That could be used in this context, for example:
>
>A: pa re xu ci
>B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci
Since I don't recognize the experimental cmavo, I can't comment. Using an
(apparent) contrast with an experimental cmavo is a rather weak
justification for another experimental usage.
> >It would mean that the logical connectives are handled by hodgepodge: je
> >and naje would be lexer tokens, but najenai would grammatically be naje
> >with an absorbed nai as part of the je hence implying "na (je nai)" which
> >is not correct.
>
>Why is that not correct? The parser can't tell {je} appart from {ja},
>why is it such a big deal if it can't tell them appart from {jenai}
>either? {naje} does not imply {na(je)}, so {najenai} will not imply
>{na(jenai)} either.
The reason "na je" has not implied grouping is because it is called out
distinctly in the YACC grammar as a separate rule with no grouping, as is
NA JA NAI. But the parser rule is specifically that UI is absorbed into
the preceding token, which indeed means that "(na) (je)" and "(na) (jenai)"
will be considered identical grammatically.
> >You would fix something by breaking other things, and raise far more
> >questions that you would answer.
>
>I don't agree with that. I think Lojban has far too many selmaho
>that complicate the grammar unnecessarily,
I know you think that.
>and nothing is broken by regularizing NAI.
Except for the fact that NAI would not have consistent meaning in its
various incarnations.
> >Resorting to UI is a copout since UI has no
> >grammatical interaction OTHER THAN with the prior word (and the prior word
> >determines its scope which I don't think would be true with nai).
>
>Whyever not? NAI always attaches to the immediately preceding word,
>doesn't it? It is hard to think of a context where {xu} is allowed
>that won't admit a possible meaning for {nai}.
But not the SAME meaning.
Jordan DeLong
--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:42:28PM +0000, Jorge Llambias wrote:
> la lojbab cusku di'e
> >I think that NAI treated as a UI would cause more (semantics) problems t=
han
> >you can imagine (and we did consider it, albeit VERY briefly). You are =
the
> >one who wants better semantics definition. Grammatically it would be a
> >major change because NAI is in so many rules.
>=20
> It is precisely because it is in so many rules, that it is difficult
> to learn. For each rule, you have to learn whether or not it allows
> NAI. Moving NAI to UI may be a major change but it would be one that
> simplifies the grammar, and which is also fully backward compatible,
> so the best kind of change.
I think the first part is an overexaggeration of how difficult it
is to learn where NAI is allowed.
Yes, it simplifies the grammar (in terms of reducing the size and
number of rules), but is not a good idea because it's sloppy ("We
can't exactly decide when we want to allow -nai, so lets allow it
anywhere and decide what it means later")---giving up a piece of
rigorousness from the grammar.
> >pa re nai ci?
> >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
>=20
> That could be used in this context, for example:
>=20
> A: pa re xu ci
> B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci
I dunno what ja'ai is and don't feel like looking it up. This seems
highly contrived though. Anyway, there's certainly tons of weird
things which would need to be explained (ku nai, pi'e nai, la/le/etc nai,
.inai, mi nai, la'e nai di'u, jai nai, etc etc).
> >It would mean that the logical connectives are handled by hodgepodge: je
> >and naje would be lexer tokens, but najenai would grammatically be naje
> >with an absorbed nai as part of the je hence implying "na (je nai)" whi=
ch
> >is not correct.
>=20
> Why is that not correct? The parser can't tell {je} appart from {ja},
This is just false. The parser can and does know the difference
between {je} and {ja}---that's how it prints either "and" or "or"
as the gloss.
> why is it such a big deal if it can't tell them appart from {jenai}
> either? {naje} does not imply {na(je)}, so {najenai} will not imply
> {na(jenai)} either.
najenai with nai in UI *does* require na(jenai), because the free
modifier applies to the word before the word gets reduced into
whatever other rule. The parser certainly *can* hack around this
and know whether the "je" has a nai attached to it, but it's a lot
less clean, and makes the parse tree not really reflect the grammatical
structure. (as lojbab said, the structure of it is just "na je"
and not "na je nai").
[...]
--=20
Jordan DeLong - frac...@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
--Qxx1br4bt0+wmkIi
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
[Attachment content not displayed.]
Adam Raizen
>"Let usage decide" refers to a time (which we are not anywhere near)
>in the distant future when people can fluently speak lojban. It
>does not refer to mistakes people make when learning. Usage is not
>sufficient to decide anything right now, and of the usage which
>exists there's barely any ka'enai---there's only a few people who
>would rather change it to be correct than to just take a look at
>the BNF and learn what the grammar for tenses really is (CAhA is
>not just like PU, neither is ZAhO, etc).
There is a bit of a difference between ka'enai and just any mistake made
by a beginner. ka'enai is said by some people, knowing that it's not
officially grammatical, because they think that it should be grammatical,
based on analogy to other tenses. Clearly, usage should not decide
based on beginners' mistakes, but a "mistake" such as ka'enai which
is made intentionally by competent speakers is not going to go away
even when fluency is commonplace.
mu'o mi'e .adam.
And Rosta
> At 12:51 PM 12/2/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote:
> >Jordan to Craig:
> > > Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
> > > will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> > > that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made
> >
> >I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes
> >to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a
> >highly eccentric notion of frivolity
>
> No he doesn't. That is my position and that is in effect the OFFICIAL
> position. I've considered most of the jboske discussions to be frivolous
> and still do
Are you sure you mean "frivolous"? Perhaps it means something else
in America (like "moot" once turned out to in one of our early
exchanges). Oh hang on, you're thinking of the legalistic sense
-- "a frivolous petition", say, meaning time-wasting, inconsequential,
trivial, whereas to me it ordinarily means "gay, not serious, light
hearted, silly, playful". So yes, I misunderstood you and Jordan,
and I acknowledge that his notion of frivolity in the legalistic
sense is not highly eccentric.
> >Stuff you consider frivolous, other people consider to be entirely serious
>
> I'm sure. But the only changes to the baseline that the byfy will adopt
> are those that consensus agrees are needed. So dismissing those you call
> "conservatives" is a sure way to get none of your ideas listened to
I don't think I dismiss those I call conservatives. I'm not sure what
you were thinking of.
As for getting my ideas listened to, I just try and cast my ideas
abroad on the winds of the net, and let them fall where they may
in the hope that some will land in fertile ground. I believe that
in this way, by promulgating formalist and progressivist notions
to a largely resentful audience, I am serving the best interests
of Lojban.
> >(Or as serious as
> >anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
> >is one great frivolity.)
>
> You might. But as someone who has spent 15 years of my life on it, I would
> never accept that argument
I try not to think about it too much.
> >If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives
> >or reformers would prevail
>
> The byfy will be working by consensus and not by majority vote
Yes I know, but knowing which is the majority view is a helpful
instrument in forming a consensus. Other things being equal, the
onus is on the minority to accommodate to the majority.
> >Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
> >to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
> >that command intrinsic respect
>
> There are people who believe that rules inherently command respect. There
> are anarchists who believe that rules inherently demand
> question. Linguistically, the latter become poets. Helsem is the future
> of your "movement"
I know you're making a rhetorical flourish rather than a serious
point, but I don't think what you say is quite right. Casting my
mind's eye across the canon of English poetry, the questioning of
grammatical rules does not leap out as a conspicuous feature.
Nor would I characterize Michael's Lojban as questioning the rules
of Lojban. A mild cavalierness, perhaps, but not an active
questioning; he explores Lojban; he doesn't subvert it. And finally,
the sort of people I was talking about belong to neither of your
types: they don't believe that rules inherently command respect or
demand question; they believe that good rules command respect and
bad rules demand question.
--And.
Jorge Llambias
la lojbab cusku di'e
>I think that NAI treated as a UI would cause more (semantics) problems than
>you can imagine (and we did consider it, albeit VERY briefly). You are the
>one who wants better semantics definition. Grammatically it would be a
>major change because NAI is in so many rules.
It is precisely because it is in so many rules, that it is difficult
to learn. For each rule, you have to learn whether or not it allows
NAI. Moving NAI to UI may be a major change but it would be one that
simplifies the grammar, and which is also fully backward compatible,
so the best kind of change.
>pa re nai ci?
>(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
That could be used in this context, for example:
A: pa re xu ci
B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci
>It would mean that the logical connectives are handled by hodgepodge: je
>and naje would be lexer tokens, but najenai would grammatically be naje
>with an absorbed nai as part of the je hence implying "na (je nai)" which
>is not correct.
Why is that not correct? The parser can't tell {je} appart from {ja},
why is it such a big deal if it can't tell them appart from {jenai}
either? {naje} does not imply {na(je)}, so {najenai} will not imply
{na(jenai)} either.
>You would fix something by breaking other things, and raise far more
>questions that you would answer.
I don't agree with that. I think Lojban has far too many selmaho
that complicate the grammar unnecessarily, and nothing is broken
by regularizing NAI.
>nai is far less arbitrary and difficult to learn than the elidability
>terminators, or the places where free modifiers are and are not
>allowed. There are some things is the language that are restricted by the
>need to have LALR1.
Yes, but this is not the case for the restrictions on NAI.
>Resorting to UI is a copout since UI has no
>grammatical interaction OTHER THAN with the prior word (and the prior word
>determines its scope which I don't think would be true with nai).
Whyever not? NAI always attaches to the immediately preceding word,
doesn't it? It is hard to think of a context where {xu} is allowed
that won't admit a possible meaning for {nai}.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Jordan DeLong
> Jordan:
> > > Jordan to Craig:
> > > He well could be. In a former discussion about how to translate
> > > English "still" and "already", {ba'o nai} emerged as the best
> > > candidate for rendering "still" (as I recall). I guess {na'e
> > > ba'o} would do the job too, but it is certainly not true that
> > > nobody has hitherto supposed ZAhO+NAI useful
> >
> > I meant to say ze'u nai. There's a *bunch* of tenses you can't put
> > nai on. People presenting the 'case' for ka'e+nai generally claim
> > that it improves "consistency", when it does the opposite
>
> You're right in one sense, but I think the underlying idea is that
> if there were a grammar change it would be to give NAI the distribution
> of UI, so that its distribution would be overall less arbitrary and
> more learnable.
I agree---if a change is made to allow ka'enai, it would have to
be the general change to move nai to UI. However, I think that
that is a bad idea (nai means different things in different contexts,
etc). Also, the BF probably doesn't have the authority to do it:
the doc says specifically that it cannot create new selma'o, so I
would imagine it is not allowed to delete them either (deleting NAI
is a *huge* change to the grammar). Obviously, I would also strongly
object to moving the cmavo and leaving the grammar with the rules
for NAI (which would then contain no cmavo) in tact.
> > > > Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
> > > > will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> > > > that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made
> > >
> > > I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes
> > > to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a
> > > highly eccentric notion of frivolity. Stuff you consider frivolous,
> > > other people consider to be entirely serious. (Or as serious as
> > > anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
> > > is one great frivolity.)
> >
> > Useless paragraph
>
> Xod told me the other day that you're 17(!) As I said to xod, I
> shall admire you for your intellect that is utterly not that of
> the typical 17 year old, and try not to get irate at you for
> having the social graces of the typical 17 year old. Because of
> the discrepancy, though, it's easy to forget that I shouldn't
> expect the quality of your manners to be commensurate with the
> high quality of your ideas.
Actually I'm 19 (was 18 when first starting out on lojban IRC, so
he may have been remembering that...).
Anyway, I maintain that the paragraph was useless (First, it's
obvious that when I say "frivolous", I mean "things I consider to
be frivolous". Second, whether or not my view is the majority
viewpoint is immaterial (ad populum), and as lojbab pointed out
it's arguable that my view of what is "frivolous" is really so far
from the majority).
Perhaps I could've said that more politely, yes.
> > > The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
> > > rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
> > > internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
> > > the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
> > > has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
> > > and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
> > > is a candidate for being officially formalized
> >
> > This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
> > is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
> > to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
> > ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
> > allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI
>
> Do you understand that I am trying to explain to how how the opposing
> side sees things? The actual debate should go to the BF. I was just
> trying to point out to you that everybody else isn't as stupid as
> you think they are.
I never claimed anyone was stupid, you're putting words into my
mouth. If people get the idea that NAI is UI, it's because they
learned wrong.
> > > If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives
> > > or reformers would prevail. I suppose it would depend on whether
> > > nonactivists could be bothered to vote, since I have the impression
> > > that they tend to be conservatives, while most activists are
> > > moderate reformers. Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
> > > many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect
> > > Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
> > > to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
> > > that command intrinsic respect
> >
> > I am confident that the more ka'enai users who give a bit of effort
> > to understand why it is not allowed, the more of them that will
> > abandon ka'e+nai of their own accord. I've not seen a single
> > argument for CAhA+NAI that didn't consist of "It's more consistent",
> > which is completely false, so I believe people can be convinced on
> > this issue
>
> Is "It's more consistent that NAI be in UI rather than be able to
> cooccur with an apparently arbitrary and deductively unpredictable
> subset of selmaho" completely false? I think that's the argument
> you'll need to find counterarguments to.
How about this one: why don't we just make all words UI? A bit
of a slippery slope, of course ;P
But seriously: nai means completely different things on different
words, and I think the grammar should clearly reflect that (and
currently it does). NAI should probably not have been allowed on
FAhA or PU, and Cowan has said it was done to preserve backward
compat with what people were used to. Changing it to selma'o UI
is a *massive* grammar change, which the BF probably doesn't even
have authority to do, and opens up a whole number of contexts which
need to be explained (what does ki+nai mean? what does co+nai
mean?).
Calling it 'arbitrary' and 'unpredictable' is a bit of stretch; the
former for obvious reasons, the latter because the grammar is clearly
available and readable by anyone in BNF form.
--
And Rosta
> Why aren't you complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?
He well could be. In a former discussion about how to translate
English "still" and "already", {ba'o nai} emerged as the best
candidate for rendering "still" (as I recall). I guess {na'e
ba'o} would do the job too, but it is certainly not true that
nobody has hitherto supposed ZAhO+NAI useful.
> Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
> will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made
I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes
to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a
highly eccentric notion of frivolity. Stuff you consider frivolous,
other people consider to be entirely serious. (Or as serious as
anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
is one great frivolity.)
The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
is a candidate for being officially formalized.
If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives
or reformers would prevail. I suppose it would depend on whether
nonactivists could be bothered to vote, since I have the impression
that they tend to be conservatives, while most activists are
moderate reformers. Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect.
Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
that command intrinsic respect.
--And.
Jordan DeLong
> On Sun, 1 Dec 2002, Craig wrote:
> > >> Under the new baseline policy, would it be possible to have such common
> > >> "errors" as ka'enai incorporated into the official language?
> >
> > >The way I read it is that it's *highly* unlikely that any grammar
> > >changes will occur. Especially for something as questionable as
> > >CAhA+NAI, where it's not clear what it even should mean.
>
> Are you suggesting that to'eka'e is different from na'eka'e?
{to'eka'e} is in fact different from {na'eka'e}. And both of them are
completely different from {na ka'e}, which is what Craig thinks it
means.
> > >In fact,
> > >you'd do well to avoid using PU+NAI/FAhA+NAI as well, lest you fall
> > >into the trap of thinking of it as something other than contradictory
> > >negation.
> >
> > The problem with this logic is that for things that are not dictated, the
First of all, ka'enai was dictated as incorrect.
> > motto is always the famous LUD - Let Usage Decide. Well, U has D'd that even
> > though there is a prescription here, ka'enai is fine. That is to say, it
> > pops up all sorts of places, and everyone understands it (as equivalent to
> > na ka'e). So if the language is reentering a period of change, ka'enai
> > should be considered at least.
"Let usage decide" refers to a time (which we are not anywhere near)
in the distant future when people can fluently speak lojban. It
does not refer to mistakes people make when learning. Usage is not
sufficient to decide anything right now, and of the usage which
exists there's barely any ka'enai---there's only a few people who
would rather change it to be correct than to just take a look at
the BNF and learn what the grammar for tenses really is (CAhA is
not just like PU, neither is ZAhO, etc).
Furthermore, I've never once said "Let usage decide" about anything,
so it has no bearing on the consistency of my viewpoint on this
issue.
Your explaination of what "everyone" knows ka'enai means proves my
point: some people who use ka'enai use it like to'eka'e, some use
it like na ka'e.
Furthermore, if you think it means na ka'e, why don't you say na
ka'e? No difference in syllables, and the former is defined in the
language grammar. Further it is more consistent with how contradictory
negation is normally done.
> First and last sentences of D5 of http://www.lojban.org/llg/baseline.html
> indicates that ka'enai can be considered by the BF.
The statement does in fact explicitly state that ka'enai is appropriate
for the BF to *consider*. It also says that grammar changes are
not to be considered something the BF should be primarily doing (no
new selma'o, and rule changes are highly questionable).
Anyway, I'll certainly vote against any frivolous grammar changes
if they are put to a vote for BF stuff, especially one which adds
a rule for ka'e+nai, which would be a bad change in my view.
And Rosta
> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:51:52PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> > > Why aren't you complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?
> > He well could be. In a former discussion about how to translate
> > English "still" and "already", {ba'o nai} emerged as the best
> > candidate for rendering "still" (as I recall). I guess {na'e
> > ba'o} would do the job too, but it is certainly not true that
>
> I meant to say ze'u nai. There's a *bunch* of tenses you can't put
> nai on. People presenting the 'case' for ka'e+nai generally claim
> that it improves "consistency", when it does the opposite
You're right in one sense, but I think the underlying idea is that
if there were a grammar change it would be to give NAI the distribution
of UI, so that its distribution would be overall less arbitrary and
more learnable.
> > > Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
> > > will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> > > that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made
> >
> > I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes
> > to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a
> > highly eccentric notion of frivolity. Stuff you consider frivolous,
> > other people consider to be entirely serious. (Or as serious as
> > anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
> > is one great frivolity.)
>
> Useless paragraph
Xod told me the other day that you're 17(!) As I said to xod, I
shall admire you for your intellect that is utterly not that of
the typical 17 year old, and try not to get irate at you for
having the social graces of the typical 17 year old. Because of
the discrepancy, though, it's easy to forget that I shouldn't
expect the quality of your manners to be commensurate with the
high quality of your ideas.
> > The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
> > rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
> > internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
> > the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
> > has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
> > and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
> > is a candidate for being officially formalized
>
> This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
> is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
> to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
> ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
> allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI
Do you understand that I am trying to explain to how how the opposing
side sees things? The actual debate should go to the BF. I was just
trying to point out to you that everybody else isn't as stupid as
you think they are.
> > If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives
> > or reformers would prevail. I suppose it would depend on whether
> > nonactivists could be bothered to vote, since I have the impression
> > that they tend to be conservatives, while most activists are
> > moderate reformers. Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
> > many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect
> > Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
> > to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
> > that command intrinsic respect
>
> I am confident that the more ka'enai users who give a bit of effort
> to understand why it is not allowed, the more of them that will
> abandon ka'e+nai of their own accord. I've not seen a single
> argument for CAhA+NAI that didn't consist of "It's more consistent",
> which is completely false, so I believe people can be convinced on
> this issue
Is "It's more consistent that NAI be in UI rather than be able to
cooccur with an apparently arbitrary and deductively unpredictable
subset of selmaho" completely false? I think that's the argument
you'll need to find counterarguments to.
--And.
And Rosta
> I think that NAI treated as a UI would cause more (semantics) problems than
> you can imagine (and we did consider it, albeit VERY briefly). You are the
> one who wants better semantics definition. Grammatically it would be a
> major change because NAI is in so many rules
>
> (pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
>
> It would mean that the logical connectives are handled by hodgepodge: je
> and naje would be lexer tokens, but najenai would grammatically be naje
> with an absorbed nai as part of the je hence implying "na (je nai)" which
> is not correct
>
> questions that you would answer
As I said to Jordan, these are good arguments. It's a bit premature to
raise them now, but hopefully they won't have to be repeated at length
when we come to discuss ka'enai.
> > > > The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
> > > > rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
> > > > internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
> > > > the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
> > > > has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
> > > > and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
> > > > is a candidate for being officially formalized
> > >
> > > This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
> > > is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
> > > to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
> > > ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
> > > allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI
> >
> >Do you understand that I am trying to explain to how how the opposing
> >side sees things? The actual debate should go to the BF. I was just
> >trying to point out to you that everybody else isn't as stupid as
> >you think they are
>
> Just the "opposing side" that sees things that way %^)
Do you mean to ask whether I am on that opposing side? I'm not really,
actually. I'm curious to see how the conflict between Naturalism and
Fundamentalism is played out -- since I subscribe to neither school,
I can sit back and observe the outcome without a stake in it. As it
happens, I had internalized the rule that NAI has the distribution
of UI, but in my case Jordan's description of this as an error of
learning applies accurately.
(My own view on the matter, which I don't feel like agitating for, is
that X+NAI should be grammatical iff (a) it is semantically or functionally
distinct from a NA/NAhE+X counterpart or if it has no NA/NAhE+X counterpart
and (b) if it expresses negation of some sort with semantics consistent
within the construction. The default option would be to scrap it as
far as possible. I particularly dislike UI+NAI, except in a minority
of discursives, because it treats oppositions that should really be
equipollent as privative. Abstracting and generalizing, I take the
view that nothing meaningless is truly grammatical, regardless of
what the BNF grammar says.)
Jordan DeLong
[...]
> I don't think ka'enai has anything to do with logic. Neither is
> it inconsistent with the rest of tense cmavo. Why aren't you
> complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?
s/za'o/ze'u/
Jordan DeLong
> >> > motto is always the famous LUD - Let Usage Decide. Well, U has D'd that
> even
> >> > though there is a prescription here, ka'enai is fine. That is to say,
> it
> >> > pops up all sorts of places, and everyone understands it (as equivalent
> to
> >> > na ka'e). So if the language is reentering a period of change, ka'enai
> >> > should be considered at least.
>
> >"Let usage decide" refers to a time (which we are not anywhere near)
> >in the distant future when people can fluently speak lojban. It
> >does not refer to mistakes people make when learning. Usage is not
> >sufficient to decide anything right now, and of the usage which
> >exists there's barely any ka'enai---there's only a few people who
> >would rather change it to be correct than to just take a look at
> >the BNF and learn what the grammar for tenses really is (CAhA is
> >not just like PU, neither is ZAhO, etc).
>
> I think yours is worng. But there is one thing I must object to here. The
> bulk of "ka'enai" use NOT to be construed as a "mistake people make when
> learning", it is a conscious choice to be LOGICAL with our "Logical
> language" and use a form that is consistent with the rest of the language -
> despite knowledge that someone decided it should be considered incorrect
> without considering the rest of the language.
I don't think ka'enai has anything to do with logic. Neither is
it inconsistent with the rest of tense cmavo. Why aren't you
complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?
Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made.
Craig
>be the general change to move nai to UI. However, I think that
>that is a bad idea (nai means different things in different contexts,
>etc). Also, the BF probably doesn't have the authority to do it:
>the doc says specifically that it cannot create new selma'o, so I
>would imagine it is not allowed to delete them either (deleting NAI
>is a *huge* change to the grammar). Obviously, I would also strongly
>object to moving the cmavo and leaving the grammar with the rules
>for NAI (which would then contain no cmavo) in tact.
I agree with all but the first sentence of that - vanishing NAI would be a
Bad Thing. However, we could allow the cluster CAhA NAI without moving nai
to UI.
>> Xod told me the other day that you're 17(!) As I said to xod, I
>> shall admire you for your intellect that is utterly not that of
>> the typical 17 year old, and try not to get irate at you for
>> having the social graces of the typical 17 year old. Because of
>> the discrepancy, though, it's easy to forget that I shouldn't
>> expect the quality of your manners to be commensurate with the
>> high quality of your ideas.
>Actually I'm 19 (was 18 when first starting out on lojban IRC, so
>he may have been remembering that...).
Hey, age has nothing to do with it. You just have to be careful, regardless
of your age. Adults can also mess up; the rest of us can also not.
>> > > The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
>> > > rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
>> > > internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
>> > > the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
>> > > has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
>> > > and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
>> > > is a candidate for being officially formalized
>> >
>> > This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
>> > is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
>> > to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
>> > ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
>> > allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI
>>
>> Do you understand that I am trying to explain to how how the opposing
>> side sees things? The actual debate should go to the BF. I was just
>> trying to point out to you that everybody else isn't as stupid as
>> you think they are.
>I never claimed anyone was stupid, you're putting words into my
>mouth. If people get the idea that NAI is UI, it's because they
>learned wrong.
I don't know about the rest of the prokahenaists, but I have never said nai
should be a UI. It is different from UI; it just ought to be a little more
UIlike than it is.
>But seriously: nai means completely different things on different
>words, and I think the grammar should clearly reflect that (and
>currently it does). NAI should probably not have been allowed on
>FAhA or PU, and Cowan has said it was done to preserve backward
>compat with what people were used to. Changing it to selma'o UI
>is a *massive* grammar change, which the BF probably doesn't even
>have authority to do, and opens up a whole number of contexts which
>need to be explained (what does ki+nai mean? what does co+nai
>mean?).
Nai shouldn't be a UI. On this, we agree.
How it behaves on FAhA and PU are irrelevant, at least to me - I don't even
think of CAhA as a tense, though I suppose it technically is. Lack of
ka'enai is bad, whether or not punai is equally bad.
And Rosta
> > > > > Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
> > > > > will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> > > > > that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made
> > > >
> > > > I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes
> > > > to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a
> > > > highly eccentric notion of frivolity. Stuff you consider frivolous,
> > > > other people consider to be entirely serious. (Or as serious as
> > > > anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
> > > > is one great frivolity.)
> > >
> > > Useless paragraph
> >
> > Xod told me the other day that you're 17(!) As I said to xod, I
> > shall admire you for your intellect that is utterly not that of
> > the typical 17 year old, and try not to get irate at you for
> > having the social graces of the typical 17 year old. Because of
> > the discrepancy, though, it's easy to forget that I shouldn't
> > expect the quality of your manners to be commensurate with the
> > high quality of your ideas
>
> he may have been remembering that...)
>
> obvious that when I say "frivolous", I mean "things I consider to
> be frivolous". Second, whether or not my view is the majority
> viewpoint is immaterial (ad populum), and as lojbab pointed out
> it's arguable that my view of what is "frivolous" is really so far
> from the majority)
I had misunderstood you to be saying that I was acting out of levity
(xalbo), and was saying that if you see xalbo where most others see
junri then maybe the problem is in the way you discriminate xalbo
and junri. But you were actually meaning to accuse me of perpetrating
tolvajni, which is of course something that many agree with you
about.
> Perhaps I could've said that more politely, yes
>
> > > > The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
> > > > rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
> > > > internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
> > > > the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
> > > > has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
> > > > and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
> > > > is a candidate for being officially formalized
> > >
> > > This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
> > > is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
> > > to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
> > > ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
> > > allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI
> >
> > Do you understand that I am trying to explain to how how the opposing
> > side sees things? The actual debate should go to the BF. I was just
> > trying to point out to you that everybody else isn't as stupid as
> > you think they are
>
> I never claimed anyone was stupid, you're putting words into my
> mouth. If people get the idea that NAI is UI, it's because they
> learned wrong
Maybe, but when it's pointed out to them, they prefer the wrong
version, for rational but not baseline-compliant reasons.
[...]
> But seriously: nai means completely different things on different
> words, and I think the grammar should clearly reflect that (and
> currently it does). NAI should probably not have been allowed on
> FAhA or PU, and Cowan has said it was done to preserve backward
> compat with what people were used to. Changing it to selma'o UI
> is a *massive* grammar change, which the BF probably doesn't even
> have authority to do, and opens up a whole number of contexts which
> need to be explained (what does ki+nai mean? what does co+nai
> mean?)
These are good arguments.
> Calling it 'arbitrary' and 'unpredictable' is a bit of stretch; the
> former for obvious reasons, the latter because the grammar is clearly
> available and readable by anyone in BNF form
I think I said "deductively unpredictable", by which I meant that in
many respects you can work out intuitively/deductively how the
grammar works, without actually reading the BNF.
--And.
Craig
even
>> > though there is a prescription here, ka'enai is fine. That is to say,
it
>> > pops up all sorts of places, and everyone understands it (as equivalent
to
>> > na ka'e). So if the language is reentering a period of change, ka'enai
>> > should be considered at least.
>"Let usage decide" refers to a time (which we are not anywhere near)
>in the distant future when people can fluently speak lojban. It
>does not refer to mistakes people make when learning. Usage is not
>sufficient to decide anything right now, and of the usage which
>exists there's barely any ka'enai---there's only a few people who
>would rather change it to be correct than to just take a look at
>the BNF and learn what the grammar for tenses really is (CAhA is
>not just like PU, neither is ZAhO, etc).
In general, I respect your opinion - I'm just putting mine out there because
Robert LeChevalier
>Jordan to Craig:
> > will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> > that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made
>
>I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes
>to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a
>highly eccentric notion of frivolity.
No he doesn't. That is my position and that is in effect the OFFICIAL
position. I've considered most of the jboske discussions to be frivolous
and still do.
>Stuff you consider frivolous, other people consider to be entirely serious.
I'm sure. But the only changes to the baseline that the byfy will adopt
are those that consensus agrees are needed. So dismissing those you call
"conservatives" is a sure way to get none of your ideas listened to.
>(Or as serious as
>anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
>is one great frivolity.)
You might. But as someone who has spent 15 years of my life on it, I would
never accept that argument.
>If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives
>or reformers would prevail.
The byfy will be working by consensus and not by majority vote.
>Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
>many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect.
It probably would depend on whether there emerged na'eka'e users to set a
good example. Right now there are only a couple of people setting examples
for people to inductively learn from. They are not the language community,
which is still largely dominated by potential rather than actual users.
We seem to differ in that I think that the others WILL become more active
once there is a dictionary and Nick and Robin's books are officially DONE,
and only then will we start to find out what the language really is like.
>Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
>to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
>that command intrinsic respect.
There are people who believe that rules inherently command respect. There
are anarchists who believe that rules inherently demand
question. Linguistically, the latter become poets. Helsem is the future
of your "movement".
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc.
2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
To unsubscribe, send mail to lojban-un...@onelist.com
Jorge Llambias
la lojbab cusku di'e
> > >pa re nai ci?
> > >(pa re .uinai ci passes the parser)
> >
> >That could be used in this context, for example:
> >
> >A: pa re xu ci
> >B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci
>
>Since I don't recognize the experimental cmavo, I can't comment.
How about:
A: pa re xu ci
B: i pa re nai ci i pa ba'e ze ci
> Using an
>(apparent) contrast with an experimental cmavo is a rather weak
>justification for another experimental usage.
I suspect you're trying very hard to not understand.
>The reason "na je" has not implied grouping is because it is called out
>distinctly in the YACC grammar as a separate rule with no grouping, as is
>NA JA NAI. But the parser rule is specifically that UI is absorbed into
>the preceding token, which indeed means that "(na) (je)" and "(na) (jenai)"
>will be considered identical grammatically.
Yes, and "(na) (ja)" is also identical to them grammatically. So
what? We could have had another UI that turned {je} into {ja} the
way {nai} turns {je} into {jenai}. I don't see the problem.
> >and nothing is broken by regularizing NAI.
>
>Except for the fact that NAI would not have consistent meaning in its
>various incarnations.
It doesn't already.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
Jorge Llambias
la djorden cusku di'e
>I think the first part is an overexaggeration of how difficult it
>is to learn where NAI is allowed.
It may not be very difficult, but it is an unnecessary
complication. An arbitrary restriction. There is no justification
for where it is allowed other than "that's how it is".
>Yes, it simplifies the grammar (in terms of reducing the size and
>number of rules), but is not a good idea because it's sloppy ("We
>can't exactly decide when we want to allow -nai, so lets allow it
>anywhere and decide what it means later")---giving up a piece of
>rigorousness from the grammar.
I don't see the point of rigour for the sake of rigour. Why
are we not as rigorous with the rest of UI?
> > A: pa re xu ci
> > B: i pa re nai ci i pa ze ja'ai ci
>
>I dunno what ja'ai is and don't feel like looking it up.
ja'ai:nai::ja'a:na
>This seems
>highly contrived though.
I probably would never say anything like that, but Lojbab
seemed unable to find meaning in it.
>Anyway, there's certainly tons of weird
>things which would need to be explained (ku nai, pi'e nai, la/le/etc nai,
>.inai, mi nai, la'e nai di'u, jai nai, etc etc).
I see how many of those could be quite useful.
> > Why is that not correct? The parser can't tell {je} appart from {ja},
>
>This is just false. The parser can and does know the difference
>between {je} and {ja}---that's how it prints either "and" or "or"
>as the gloss.
Then in the same way it can also see {jenai} as different from {je}.
> > why is it such a big deal if it can't tell them appart from {jenai}
> > either? {naje} does not imply {na(je)}, so {najenai} will not imply
> > {na(jenai)} either.
>
>najenai with nai in UI *does* require na(jenai), because the free
>modifier applies to the word before the word gets reduced into
>whatever other rule.
{naje} is not the negation of {je}. Similarly, {najenai} would
not be the negation of {jenai}, which seemed to be Lojbab's
objection.
>The parser certainly *can* hack around this
>and know whether the "je" has a nai attached to it, but it's a lot
>less clean, and makes the parse tree not really reflect the grammatical
>structure.
I don't understand how that would be a hack.
>(as lojbab said, the structure of it is just "na je"
>and not "na je nai").
{je}, {na je}, {je nai} and {na je nai} all have the same structure,
they are all connectives, binary operators. That wouldn't change
if {nai} was in UI.
mu'o mi'e xorxes
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
Jordan DeLong
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 12:51:52PM -0000, And Rosta wrote:
> Jordan to Craig:
> > Why aren't you complaining that you can't say "za'onai"?
> He well could be. In a former discussion about how to translate
> English "still" and "already", {ba'o nai} emerged as the best
> candidate for rendering "still" (as I recall). I guess {na'e
> ba'o} would do the job too, but it is certainly not true that
> nobody has hitherto supposed ZAhO+NAI useful.
I meant to say ze'u nai. There's a *bunch* of tenses you can't put
nai on. People presenting the 'case' for ka'e+nai generally claim
that it improves "consistency", when it does the opposite.
> > Anyway, I suggest we discuss this later as part of BF stuff, as it
> > will likely be a topic considered, though I think (hope?) it unlikely
> > that such kinds of frivolous changes to the grammar are made=20
>=20
> I think everyone would support the idea of avoiding frivolous changes=20
> to official documentation, but you have to realize that you have a=20
> highly eccentric notion of frivolity. Stuff you consider frivolous,
> other people consider to be entirely serious. (Or as serious as
> anything in Lojban is; you might argue that the entire enterprise
> is one great frivolity.)
Useless paragraph.
> The general thrust of the pro CAhA+NAI camp is that the unofficial
> rule "NAI has the distribution of UI" is what many people have
> internalized, through naturalistic inductive methods of learning
> the grammar. The argument is therefore that the unofficial rule
> has proved itself to be more natural, and since it is harmless
> and has the added virtue of simplifying the grammar a little, it
> is a candidate for being officially formalized.
This "unofficial rule" is simply an error. NAI is not a UI. It
is not a CAI either. I *highly* doubt the BF even has the authority
to change a cmavo to a different selma'o, so if they were to accept
ka'enai it would likely be done by hacking the tense grammar to
allow NAI after CAhA, and not by changing NAI to UI.
> If it were put to a vote, I don't know whether the conservatives
> or reformers would prevail. I suppose it would depend on whether
> nonactivists could be bothered to vote, since I have the impression
> that they tend to be conservatives, while most activists are
> moderate reformers. Anyway, if the conservatives won, I wonder how
> many "ka'enai" users would stop using it. Not many, I suspect.
> Maybe Nick, depending on his mood on a given day. So you're likely
> to end up with a baseline that is followed only in those aspects
> that command intrinsic respect.
I am confident that the more ka'enai users who give a bit of effort
to understand why it is not allowed, the more of them that will
abandon ka'e+nai of their own accord. I've not seen a single
argument for CAhA+NAI that didn't consist of "It's more consistent",
which is completely false, so I believe people can be convinced on
this issue.
--=20
Jordan DeLong - frac...@allusion.net
lu zo'o loi censa bakni cu terzba le zaltapla poi xagrai li'u
sei la mark. tuen. cusku
--neYutvxvOLaeuPCA