Re: grammar

[Eric Tiedemann <est>]

	Date: Sun, 10 Dec 89 16:50:19 EST
	From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%AI.AI.MIT.EDU@MINTAKA.lcs.mit.edu>
	Subject: grammar
	
	>> mi gerna ca srera ki'u mi cnino la lojban .i'o
	
	> I didn't get beyond "I am a grammar...".
	
	Does "mi gerna" mean "my grammar" (my intended meaning) or "I am a
	grammar"?

It means "I am a grammar...".  "lemi gerna" means "my grammar".
Perhaps you would like to say something like, "mi srera lemi gerna..."
==> "I err in my grammar...".

	The definition, in the sorted gismu list, is "grammar of language...
	for structure...".  So perhaps I really claimed to be a *language*!

That would be, "mi bangu."

The definition of gerna given in lesson 1 is, "x1 is the correct
grammar in language x2 for structure x3".

	So until I
	hear otherwise, I'm making the assumption that the x1 place is left
	out on *all* of the definitions, and is always the actor.  

It *is* the actor, but in a broader sense than you're taking the term.
The actor of klama is that which comes/goes--i.e., the comer/goer.
The actor of blanu is that which "blues"--i.e., the blue thing.  The
actor of gerna is that which "grammars".  lojban takes this to be the
grammar itself.  To you it seems obvious that a grammar must have a
user (a person, a program, etc.).  I see a grammar as a stateless
relation (e.g., between terminals, non-terminals, etc.) that stands in
no need of such.

	That is why I'm assuming that "mi gerna" means "my grammar".
	
Possesives are discussed in lesson 5.

-est
.eirik. tideman.

"la simon. cu cusku lu ko zutse ledo skami li'u"